Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? [Archive]

Skeptic Ginger

15th December 2007, 11:36 PM

There seems to be a rash of atheism vs theism threads going on right now. Several have requested atheists support their conclusions about the non-existence of gods. I could ask what evidence do god believers have for their theist conclusions but I already know the usual answers. I'm not interested in any of the faith explanations, they belong solely to the believer.

But I am interested in the evidence one has for believing in one particular version of god over another. If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence. If you are going to make some value statement, monotheism is superior to polytheism, I doubt you can actually support that claim but feel free to offer your evidence.

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true. And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?

I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.

fishkr

15th December 2007, 11:47 PM

I'm reminded of my "Statistical Proof of God" post, wherein it was discussed that every competing claim of authority dilutes possible authenticity . . .

-Fran-

15th December 2007, 11:48 PM

I hope some of the theists around here will actually answer this. I would really like to know as well!!

sinclairmcevoy

15th December 2007, 11:55 PM

qayak

15th December 2007, 11:58 PM

Yes, there is proof and it goes like this:

1- I believe in the god of the bible.

2- The bible says all non-believers should be killed.

3- I am alive, I have not been killed.

4- Therefore, there is a god, he is the one I believe in and I am one of his devoted followers.

And, just so you uppity atheists don't get the idea that I haven't thought this through, all those other people who believe differently from me and who appear to be alive, aren't. They are simply in a pre-dead condition.

Kopji

16th December 2007, 12:30 AM

Ah, this is the old 'which church should I join?' question. You go pray about it. God appears and says to not join any of them. So far this plays right into the atheist agenda for world secular domination.

Oops! God appears and tells you to take up your pen and write some new scriptures so that people will know he really talked to you. The visions you had while in your time of despair will help a lot to gain new converts. (Atheist agenda obviously slipping away.)

While God is revealing himself again as in the old times he has a few new things to say. These things are not really new, they are as old as time, but now we are ready to hear them with newly opened ears and see the truth with new eyes of faith.

So there's your evidence. What's your problem?

Seriously, people have 'evidence' all the time. Why, I just received a Christmas letter from a dear friend whose father has had cancer for years. He went to the doctor recently and it was gone! A Miracle!

Included in the letter was a short note apologizing for the delay, she badly injured herself in November, but with God's blessing she was slowly getting better.

My point being, from her perspective she has plenty of confirming evidence.

Mobyseven

16th December 2007, 08:00 AM

This thread seems strangely devoid of answers from even the most vocal posters...

Ladewig

16th December 2007, 11:47 AM

What is the big friggin deal? You believe in something or you don't. This has been picked over so many times and so often it's just tiresome. You already heard all the proof believers have to offer, so what are you looking for? Someone to pick on? Quite honestly, the non-believers (some of them) seem so smug and sure of themselves that it just takes away from an active discussion. It's just like "I'm right and you're wrong, na na na na na!" Give it a rest willya?

I consider the question to be separate from the one you describe and I consider the question to be valid.

As for giving it a rest, even if it were the exact same issue, it is a valid issue to discuss in a religion sub-forum in a skeptics' forum. If I went to a Christian forum and said, "why do you people keep talking about evidence of Jesus's divinity; give it a rest," I expect their response to fall somewhere between being told my comment was rather inappropriate and being banned.

Lastly, let me offer some friendly advice, if you think this thread is unnecessary, then you have two options: ignore it or ask the moderators to merge it into an existing thread. If you think this thread is a complete waste of resources, then start several other threads with more appropriate topics and simply watch this thread roll off the first page.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th December 2007, 01:51 PM

What is the big friggin deal? You believe in something or you don't.
So it's totally arbitrary, an accident of birth? That's what I thought.

But somehow I don't believe that's what religious apologists want us to think.

~~ Paul

Bluefire

16th December 2007, 02:27 PM

So it's totally arbitrary, an accident of birth? That's what I thought.

But somehow I don't believe that's what religious apologists want us to think.

~~ Paul

Maybe not what they really want us to think, but the notion of belief and unbelief being "equally arbitrary" is one point of retreat in discussions with atheists.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

16th December 2007, 02:38 PM

Maybe not what they really want us to think, but the notion of belief and unbelief being "equally arbitrary" is one point of retreat in discussions with atheists.
It's a question of default. :D

If the existence of a thing is indistinguishable from its nonexistence, we say that thing does not exist. ---Yahzi

Skeptic Ginger

16th December 2007, 04:42 PM

Wow, only anger and non-god believers.

Just to bump the thread and keep it OT, the question is about how one can recognize other god beliefs are false, yet justify one's own gods beliefs are true? I'm not asking anyone to repeat the usual discussion about faith vs science.

I'm also asking, "And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?"

V23

16th December 2007, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig
If I went to a Christian forum and said, "why do you people keep talking about evidence of Jesus's divinity; give it a rest," I expect their response to fall somewhere between being told my comment was rather inappropriate and being banned.

I didn't realize that this was an atheist board.

sinclairmcevoy

16th December 2007, 06:18 PM

I consider the question to be separate from the one you describe and I consider the question to be valid.

As for giving it a rest, even if it were the exact same issue, it is a valid issue to discuss in a religion sub-forum in a skeptics' forum. If I went to a Christian forum and said, "why do you people keep talking about evidence of Jesus's divinity; give it a rest," I expect their response to fall somewhere between being told my comment was rather inappropriate and being banned.

Lastly, let me offer some friendly advice, if you think this thread is unnecessary, then you have two options: ignore it or ask the moderators to merge it into an existing thread. If you think this thread is a complete waste of resources, then start several other threads with more appropriate topics and simply watch this thread roll off the first page.Yes, you are correct. Sorry for the outburst.

Ladewig

16th December 2007, 07:31 PM

I didn't realize that this was an atheist board.

That issue provoked a very lengthy thread here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90448

In any case, I consider my comment appropriate even if JREF is described as an agnostic board.

arthwollipot

17th December 2007, 12:18 AM

Ah, this is the old 'which church should I join?' question. You go pray about it. God appears and says to not join any of them. So far this plays right into the atheist agenda for world secular domination.I once prayed to God for guidance about how I should best worship Him. He never answered. I interpreted that to mean that I shouldn't.

Skeptical Greg

17th December 2007, 08:38 AM

As far as Christianity goes, the current batch simply ignores the
roots of their beliefs.

Jehovah was the baddest God in the neighborhood, and the Jews were
his chosen people.

If you were unlucky enough to be born non-Jewish, you were simply
SOL ... No apology necessary ..

It created a bit of a conundrum when the Christians came up with the
idea of only one God, and all the redemption stuff..

Now they are challenged to rationalize it, in a discussion such as this..

Henners

17th December 2007, 08:43 AM

I once prayed to God for guidance about how I should best worship Him. He never answered. I interpreted that to mean that I shouldn't.

I once prayed to God for a Mercedes Benz and world peace.

Three Mercs later, I know all I need to about His priorities.

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 08:57 AM

Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?
1. Why would I care? I don't.
I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true.
2. I note your poisoning of the well.
I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.
3. Your claim of "no disrespect" is viewed skeptically, see point 2.

You are focusing on "beliefs" and seem to be ignoring philosophy. This is the standard, blinders-on approach from one side of an issue.

I note a number of your responders wonder why "theists" choose to let you stew in your own juices on this topic.

An interesting brand of "people skills" is in evidence here. It ought to occur to you that perhaps a theist doesn't necessarily frame the question that way, or even bother to waste time on it.

DR

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 09:02 AM

1. Why would I care? I don't.

Some of us actually care whether our ideas are true or not. If you are indifferent to lies, that is your problem.

2. I note your poisoning of the well.

No, it's a valid criticism. On what grounds does a theist dimiss the gods of other faiths while embracing their own?

An interesting brand of "people skills" is in evidence here. It ought to occur to you that perhaps a theist doesn't necessarily frame the question that way, or even bother to waste time on it.

DR

They should. It's called critical thinking.

Beerina

17th December 2007, 09:07 AM

I'm reminded of my "Statistical Proof of God" post, wherein it was discussed that every competing claim of authority dilutes possible authenticity . . .

"If two religions are in conflict, then one must be wrong. But if one, why not both?" - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 09:33 AM

Some of us actually care whether our ideas are true or not. If you are indifferent to lies, that is your problem.
Not a problem for me at all, you are the one with your panties in a bunch over someone else's world view.
No, it's a valid criticism. On what grounds does a theist dimiss the gods of other faiths while embracing their own?
That isn't what was asked. If you read the entire post in context, you might discover the well poisoning in the post, rather than the question, which is

A. An old question frequently asked on this forum

B. Not presented in a manner that invited further discussion

Style counts.
They should. It's called critical thinking.
Nope. Try figuring out the difference between critical thinking and people attempting to be patronizing. It will do you good.

DR

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 09:34 AM

"If two religions are in conflict, then one must be wrong. But if one, why not both?" - Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Wrong in detail, or wrong generally?

DR

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 09:35 AM

Not a problem for me at all, you are the one with your panties in a bunch over someone else's world view.

Sorry, I go commando.

That isn't what was asked. If you read the entire post in context, you might discover the well poisoning in the post, rather than the question, which is

A. An old question frequently asked on this forum

B. Not presented in a manner that invited further discussion

Style counts.

Nope. Try figuring out the difference between critical thinking and people attempting to be patronizing. It will do you good.

DR

The reason the question keeps being asked is because no one can provide an answer. There is no valid reason to accept one faith as true and another as false. It's that simple.

Skeptical Greg

17th December 2007, 09:40 AM

Wrong in detail, or wrong generally?

DR

:confused:

Can you explain how something could be wrong in detail, but not generally ?

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 09:57 AM

The reason the question keeps being asked is because no one can provide an answer. There is no valid reason to accept one faith as true and another as false. It's that simple.
If there is no answer, then why ask the question?

As to commando: :D Good one.

DR

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 09:58 AM

:confused:
Can you explain how something could be wrong in detail, but not generally ?
You are kidding, right?

Example: I got a 92 on my test. I wasn't wrong generally, but I got a few details wrong. I was wrong on some details.

DR

volatile

17th December 2007, 10:00 AM

Not a problem for me at all, you are the one with your panties in a bunch over someone else's world view.

What is this forum for, if not for discussing "world views"? In 12,000 posts, I'm sure you've felt justified in disagreeing with someone's "world view" at least once.

What ever have you been talking about on here otherwise? Pretty much every single thread on this entire forum is debate over some part of someone's world-view. Why is yours beyond critique?

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 10:22 AM

If there is no answer, then why ask the question?

Because religion still exists, and religious people still claim their religion is right and true, and all the others are evil false.

You can't possibly be this dense.

Skeptical Greg

17th December 2007, 10:55 AM

You are kidding, right?

Example: I got a 92 on my test. I wasn't wrong generally, but I got a few details wrong. I was wrong on some details.

DRNice try, but no cigar ...

Some details are more critical than others.. ( within a given belief system )

Try to tell most Christians that the detail about accepting Christ as your savior, is one you can get a waver on ..

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 10:56 AM

Nice try, but no cigar ...

Some details are more critical than others.. ( within a given belief system )

Try to tell most Christians that the detail about accepting Christ as your savior, is one you can get a waver on ..
You are the one cherry picking the details, so please, enjoy your sojurn into the fruit orchard.

DR

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 10:59 AM

Because religion still exists, and religious people still claim their religion is right and true, and all the others are evil false.

You can't possibly be this dense.
You can't possibly be this much the fool, to presume that your strawman is a substitute for reality. Theory versus practice.

The habits of religious people, the actual people, vary. Some people do just as you state, some others don't.

How hard is that for you to grasp?

You also make a bit of a leap on the "evil and false" when "false" may be the only position some take. Again, some people do hold to the "evil and false."

So what? I note some of the atheists on this board hold religion to be evil and false. Others don't.

So what?

DR

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 11:11 AM

You can't possibly be this much the fool, to presume that your strawman is a substitute for reality. Theory versus practice.

The habits of religious people, the actual people, vary. Some people do just as you state, some others don't.

How hard is that for you to grasp?

You also make a bit of a leap on the "evil and false" when "false" may be the only position some take. Again, some people do hold to the "evil and false."

So what? I note some of the atheists on this board hold religion to be evil and false. Others don't.

So what?

DR

You have thus far failed to answer why people hold that therif faith and good and true, but others evil and false. Please either answer the question, of shove off. So far all you've done is whine.

Skeptical Greg

17th December 2007, 11:43 AM

You are the one cherry picking the details, so please, enjoy your sojurn into the fruit orchard.

DRYou seem to be a master of projection ..

It wasn't I who claimed you can get some details wrong but still be right, generally ..

Who gets to pick the details ?

Why are you participating in this thread ?
You seem unable to answer the question ...

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 11:51 AM

You seem to be a master of projection.
It wasn't I who claimed you can get some details wrong but still be right, generally ..
Science does this, doesn't it? ;) Part of the trick is to sort out which is right, and which is wrong, and pursue some new answers, which lead to new questions, and then new ways to be wrong while generally right.
Who gets to pick the details ?
Grasshopper finally understands the game. :cool:
Why are you participating in this thread ?
I feel like it. What's that to you?
You seem unable to answer the question ...
Did you bother to read the OP?

If so, I ask you again, why I should care about why another persons believes differently than me, religion wise. It seems that the author of post #1 cares. I have found that the danger comes from people who have opposed political views, which sometimes do, and sometimes don't, fold religion, and religious symbology into them.

That's were you find the high body counts.

DR

Darth Rotor

17th December 2007, 11:55 AM

You have thus far failed to answer why people hold that therif faith and good and true, but others evil and false. Please either answer the question, of shove off. So far all you've done is whine.
None of you have demonstrated why that is a necessary question. It has been asked time and again on this forum. It has been used as an assertion with the form of a question.

So, what is SG trolling for?

Your assumption seems to be that religious people care about that question.

Some do, some don't.

So what?

DR

volatile

17th December 2007, 12:12 PM

Seriously. Darth - what makes your world-view beyond critique? What's wrong with asking questions? It's what this forum exists for, isn't it?

If you don't have a cogent answer to the question, that's fine; it's just a little ridiculous to wrap up an inability to answer in some kind of affected blanket of disdain.

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 12:16 PM

None of you have demonstrated why that is a necessary question. It has been asked time and again on this forum. It has been used as an assertion with the form of a question.

So, what is SG trolling for?

Your assumption seems to be that religious people care about that question.

Some do, some don't.

So what?

DR

If religious people do not care about whether their beliefs are true or not, then they are barely human.

Skeptical Greg

17th December 2007, 12:24 PM

So, what is SG trolling for?

Your assumption seems to be that religious people care about that question.

Some do, some don't.

So what?

If you don't care, what is your point ?

The question says nothing about caring ...
Beliefers can either explain why their beliefs are more valid than someone else's, or they can't .

You obviously can't ...

Skeptic Ginger

17th December 2007, 01:04 PM

There are numerous threads in the forum currently asking atheists for evidence that no gods exist. Yet I ask a similar question from theists, and I even soften it to something more tangible knowing the usual explanation that no evidence for god beliefs is supposedly required. But instead of either staying out of the thread, offering a polite, "no, I have no evidence", or actually providing something empirical as to why one believes in one or more gods but not all gods, there is this anger that I should dare ask.

This has been picked over so many times and so often it's just tiresome. You already heard all the proof believers have to offer, so what are you looking for? Someone to pick on? Quite honestly, the non-believers (some of them) seem so smug and sure of themselves that it just takes away from an active discussion. It's just like "I'm right and you're wrong, na na na na na!" Give it a rest willya?Though he did addSorry for the outburst.

1. Why would I care? I don't.
2. I note your poisoning of the well.
3. Your claim of "no disrespect" is viewed skeptically, see point 2.

You are focusing on "beliefs" and seem to be ignoring philosophy. This is the standard, blinders-on approach from one side of an issue.If you have a justification based on philosophy why one god belief is true and other god beliefs are not, then perhaps you could articulate what that justification is. After all, you cared enough to join the thread.

I note a number of your responders wonder why "theists" choose to let you stew in your own juices on this topic.I hadn't noticed they considered this to be purely my thread.

An interesting brand of "people skills" is in evidence here. It ought to occur to you that perhaps a theist doesn't necessarily frame the question that way, or even bother to waste time on it.Yet here you are here wasting time.

Perhaps it might occur to you that your cynicism is misplaced. First, if theists don't care, then why are there several threads started by theists asking atheists to disprove theist god beliefs?

And second, I am not here to bash theists. If I have any motive it is simply to challenge people's beliefs. I see evidence that such beliefs are based on indoctrination, not on "faith" or "philosophy". What you are claiming is that I can challenge any belief except certain special god beliefs. Should I cross the line and challenge special god beliefs then the anger comes out. Think about that DR.

Ask yourself why that is. Why are there two people here voicing anger that someone dares ask the question and not a single person here is able to articulate even one particular aspect of god beliefs, that is, why is one god belief valid and most if not all other god beliefs invalid. And does the fact people for the most part believe in the gods they were introduced to by accident of birth not count as evidence it is indeed indoctrination and not "faith" that is behind their god beliefs?

Skeptic Ginger

17th December 2007, 01:17 PM

Not a problem for me at all, you are the one with your panties in a bunch over someone else's world view. Pot, meet kettle. The only two people upset in this thread are upset the question was asked.

That isn't what was asked. If you read the entire post in context, you might discover the well poisoning in the post, rather than the question, which is

A. An old question frequently asked on this forum

B. Not presented in a manner that invited further discussion

Style counts.

Nope. Try figuring out the difference between critical thinking and people attempting to be patronizing. It will do you good.

DRCare to point to past threads? Perhaps I should have just resurrected one?

Like I said already, your cynicism is misplaced. Ask yourself why it angers you to have your beliefs (or your friend's beliefs if that's why you are annoyed) challenged.

Skeptic Ginger

17th December 2007, 01:24 PM

...
If so, I ask you again, why I should care about why another persons believes differently than me, religion wise. It seems that the author of post #1 cares....
DR
Might I remind you of the JREF mission statementThe James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today....

If you can explain why some god beliefs are special and don't fall into the category of supernatural, then we're all listening.

JoeEllison

17th December 2007, 01:38 PM

Just to bump the thread and keep it OT, the question is about how one can recognize other god beliefs are false, yet justify one's own gods beliefs are true?
The most funnest one I've heard is the reason Christians know that their faith is the right one is because it is the only one that has "God" send his "only son" to "die for our sins," and other details from their book of myths. In other words, Christianity is true because it is Christianity... I swear I've heard this argument over and over, and seen it in print for years. There are Christians who are convinced that quoting from their own book is proof.

When they throw in that smug smirk with their nonsense argument, I want to beat them to death with a ****-dipped sea bass.

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 01:43 PM

The most funnest one I've heard is the reason Christians know that their faith is the right one is because it is the only one that has "God" send his "only son" to "die for our sins," and other details from their book of myths. In other words, Christianity is true because it is Christianity... I swear I've heard this argument over and over, and seen it in print for years. There are Christians who are convinced that quoting from their own book is proof.

When they throw in that smug smirk with their nonsense argument, I want to beat them to death with a ****-dipped sea bass.

I have a stock one word rebuttal: Balder.

JoeEllison

17th December 2007, 01:48 PM

I have a stock one word rebuttal: Balder.

I have a stock one word rebuttal as well, but it is ill-suited for polite company.:D

ImaginalDisc

17th December 2007, 02:04 PM

I have a stock one word rebuttal as well, but it is ill-suited for polite company.:D

WWBD?

What would Balder do? Have a wild party!

arthwollipot

17th December 2007, 07:38 PM

I once prayed to God for a Mercedes Benz and world peace.

Three Mercs later, I know all I need to about His priorities.When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

(Not original)

Furi

18th December 2007, 01:10 PM

WWBD?

What would Balder do? Have a wild party!

Balder would probably have got rid of all the mistletoe in the vicinity of Loki BEFORE getting blind drunk at the party

ETA Oh what WOULD he have done, not what SHOULD he have done, I see now, yes it's clearing nicely

V23

18th December 2007, 02:02 PM

The topic of the forum is, in more ways than I care to mention in this post, an attempt to drag believers of a higher power into a fight and electronically bash in their brains.

While I am not sure that was the intent of skepticgirl, I am convinced, without the need of more supplementary evidence, that is what the intent of some who are posting here on this forum, looking for the right thread to get out some frustrations on some poor dope who just happens to be vocal about believing in a god of one sort or another.

And the usual tactic is this, "Oh you believe in a deity, gosh that must mean you’re stupid. Get him!"

The idea that a person who believes in some form of higher power, and that must mean that they are unenlightened, and primitive, seems to be a common theme.

Now, I am not going to argue any aspect of why anyone else's religious beliefs are more true than another's, because I personally believe that the entire idea of the thread is a trap, or at least that is what it may not have been originally designed to be, but it most certainly is now, however I will say this. The comment posted by Ladewig is truly reminiscent of about a thousand others I have seen posted to this board, and it betrays the EXACT intent of the people posting.

So here's an idea. How about we actually discuss the differences of people's belief structures and why one might be more valid than another's?

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 02:20 PM

While I don't condone the theist bashing in the thread, I believe it is the result of nothing else to do. No theists so far have shown up for the debate.

If one is going to claim one's own god beliefs are valid and ignore the cognitive dissonance created when one then concludes, based on evidence, other god beliefs are not valid, then that person is no longer simply segregating their faith based god beliefs from their skeptically based view of the rest of the world.

I would love to discuss the "differences of people's belief structures and why one might be more valid than another's". Can you find any theists who have joined the, "You can't disprove my beliefs", threads to join this one?

cyborg

18th December 2007, 02:30 PM

"I believe because I believe," said one machine to the other, "that I was created with purpose."

"And if you were not created with purpose," the other machine inquired, "would you still believe?"

"I believe because I believe."

"Inferior programming."

V23

18th December 2007, 02:35 PM

Furious Coder

18th December 2007, 02:37 PM

I'd actually like to hear some answers to this original question as well, but I suspect that what we'll actually get is what I have heard before:
1) Answers that do not actually answer the question, but instead demonize people of alternate religious beliefs. "See, the Jews killed Jesus, and that's why we hate them." (An actual statement by a relative of mine, BTW, though not one I particularly agree with.)
2) Anger as the cognitive dissonance kicks in, and the believer projects their confusion and anger onto the person asking the question, again, avoiding a real answer.

That said, I think I'd still like to hear some answers, or at least understand how believers rationalize that they have picked or were born into the "right" religion. The proper response I would give to one of these answers is "Thank you for your time. I appreciate your honesty. I learned something today."

Even I have the decency to reserve my rebuttals for a later moment, after I have collected enough information to see where, in my opinion, their reasoning falls short.

JoeEllison

18th December 2007, 02:41 PM

V23

18th December 2007, 02:47 PM

So, what was the purpose of your "holier than thou" post here? Your intent seems rather suspect, from where I'm standing.

Here's an idea: instead of complaining about the intent of others, why don't YOU "discuss the differences of people's belief structures and why one might be more valid than another's"?

Thank you for proving my point . . . .

JoeEllison

18th December 2007, 02:49 PM

Thank you for proving my point . . . .

Your point being that when you, V23, show up with a chip on your shoulder, people treat you like someone with a chip on your shoulder? You posted with the intent of garnering negativity, in order to safely avoid real discussion while maintaining your feelings of superiority over others.

The fact that you will probably never get around to discussing "the differences of people's belief structures and why one might be more valid than another's", proves MY point.

Thanks for playing... :D

Darth Rotor

18th December 2007, 02:58 PM

Seriously. Darth - what makes your world-view beyond critique? What's wrong with asking questions? It's what this forum exists for, isn't it?
If you don't care for my world view, presuming you think you know what it is, you are invited to enjoy your own world view.

How does that grab you?

I am curious: do you get your jollies criticizing other people's world views?

I figured out a while back that there isn't a universally right world view. If you wish to pursue that chimera, good hunting.

You want to be a Bhuddist? Good for you.

Islam brings you the peace of Allah? Go for it.

Agnostic your bag? Wallow in your joy.

Atheist to your taste? Enjoy.

That is not the tone of this thread, nor of the OP.

DR

Darth Rotor

18th December 2007, 03:03 PM

Like I said already, your cynicism is misplaced. Ask yourself why it angers you to have your beliefs (or your friend's beliefs if that's why you are annoyed) challenged.
You earlier used the word disdain. Far more accurate than anger. And no, I am not upset that this came up again.

I ask you again, why would I care that a Hindu believes as he does?

Why should I?
If you can explain why some god beliefs are special and don't fall into the category of supernatural, then we're all listening.
1. Don't make me laugh, listening isn't the same as waiting to talk.

2. That isn't what the OP is about.

3. Merry Christmas.

ETA, sorry, meant to Preview

You also mentioned wasting my time.

Indeed, a bit of mine, and a bit of yours as well.

Everybody got to waste time.

I feel a lot of love in this room.

DR

V23

18th December 2007, 03:05 PM

Your point being that when you, V23, show up with a chip on your shoulder, people treat you like someone with a chip on your shoulder? You posted with the intent of garnering negativity, in order to safely avoid real discussion while maintaining your feelings of superiority over others.

The fact that you will probably never get around to discussing "the differences of people's belief structures and why one might be more valid than another's", proves MY point.

Thanks for playing... :D

No Joe . . .If you want to discuss what the definition of a valid belief system vs. one that isn't, fine we can discuss it. The point of the matter is we were not, and if you had read the previous post in the thread, which obviously you haven't, you would see that all that had been created in this thread was another straw man to be set on fire by flamers, just like you.

But since you bring it up, lets discuss it.

I define valid belief systems as those that actually WORK for the individual. In other words, a religious belief, or philosophical belief should be something that is not just taken with blind faith but is actually applicable to an individual's life.

In my view, beliefs should work FOR YOU, and not against you.

In your opinion, which religious beliefs do you see that work for the given person that believes in them, and which ones you see as harmful?

alfaniner

18th December 2007, 03:09 PM

WWBD?

What would Balder do?

Dash, I would think.

JoeEllison

18th December 2007, 03:12 PM

No Joe . . .If you want to discuss what the definition of a valid belief system vs. one that isn't, fine we can discuss it. The point of the matter is we were not, and if you had read the previous post in the thread, which obviously you haven't, you would see that all that had been created in this thread was another straw man to be set on fire by flamers, just like you.You haven't posted once without insulting the people in this thread, while you claim that everyone else is being rude? Very nice... I've got your number now. I'll bet you're an agnostic, right? That way you can feel superior to those "rude" atheists(even though you are the one throwing out the insults), AND superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical.

But since you bring it up, lets discuss it.

I define valid belief systems as those that actually WORK for the individual. In other words, a religious belief, or philosophical belief should be something that is not just taken with blind faith but is actually applicable to an individual's life.

In my view, beliefs should work FOR YOU, and not against you.

In your opinion, which religious beliefs do you see that work for the given person that believes in them, and which ones you see as harmful?
Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 03:13 PM

If you don't care for my world view, presuming you think you know what it is, you are invited to enjoy your own world view.

How does that grab you?

I am curious: do you get your jollies criticizing other people's world views?

I figured out a while back that there isn't a universally right world view. If you wish to pursue that chimera, good hunting.

You want to be a Bhuddist? Good for you.

Islam brings you the peace of Allah? Go for it.

Agnostic your bag? Wallow in your joy.

Atheist to your taste? Enjoy.

That is not the tone of this thread, nor of the OP.

DRIn as much as the thread is not asking for testimonials about people's god beliefs, no, that is not the tone of the thread.

But in as much as you think I'm more interested in theist bashing than simply challenging theist beliefs, you are wrong about the thread and about me, of which the latter is frequently the case.

Why do you participate in the JREF forum? I assume you are not here to support one of the usual woos like homeopathy or 911 conspiracy theories. That would imply you are here because you are a skeptic of some kind.

Would you also say the following?

You want to be an astrolger? Good for you.

Homeopathy brings you the peace of good health? Go for it.

Bigfoot your bag? Wallow in your joy.

"Loose Change" to your taste? Enjoy.

I'm certainly not angry at people for their beliefs. And I only get mad at the beliefs like the anti-vaxers who essentially attack my profession and lead parents away from vaccinating their kids. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't challenge any of those beliefs which are relatively harmless. Of course I would. I want to promote critical thinking.

If you don't want to discuss why one god belief is valid and another invalid, perhaps you'd care to justify why those god beliefs you mentioned are peachy, but other woo may be challenged?

V23

18th December 2007, 03:38 PM

You haven't posted once without insulting the people in this thread, while you claim that everyone else is being rude? Very nice... I've got your number now. I'll bet you're an agnostic, right? That way you can feel superior to those "rude" atheists(even though you are the one throwing out the insults), AND superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical.

Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

Actually, no joe you do NOT have my number. I am not an agnostic. I am a Pagan, and I specifically believe in Chaos Theory. By strict definition I would be refered to as a Pantheist. I AM one of those individuals who others believe they are "superior to people with more specific religious beliefs, for being superstitious and illogical."

Secondly, who have I insulted? You? The one who refered to my post as "Hollier than Thou" and literally proved that attitude that I claimed existed on this thread by your post?

Third, if you really believe that all religious beliefs are harmful by definition, then what do you have to offer to the dicusssion of which religious belief you believe in is true while others are false, since, you don't believe in any of them?

Hang on Joe, before you answer, I think I 've got some dry straw over here . . .

JoeEllison

18th December 2007, 03:48 PM

Yep, you're still doing everything in your power to be offended, and avoiding any hint of being interested in the topic.

You proved my point 100% on that score. Nice work there. Can you, are you capable of, will you be adult enough, to ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

Here, let me quote myself: "Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would."

Got any comment on THAT?

V23

18th December 2007, 03:56 PM

slingblade

18th December 2007, 05:26 PM

You earlier used the word disdain. Far more accurate than anger. And no, I am not upset that this came up again.

I ask you again, why would I care that a Hindu believes as he does?

Why should I?

1. Don't make me laugh, listening isn't the same as waiting to talk.

2. That isn't what the OP is about.

3. Merry Christmas.

ETA, sorry, meant to Preview

You also mentioned wasting my time.

Indeed, a bit of mine, and a bit of yours as well.

Everybody got to waste time.

I feel a lot of love in this room.

DR

Darth,

Is there any evidence that your god beliefs are true, while other god beliefs are false?

epeos76

18th December 2007, 05:36 PM

I'm going to take a stab at responding to skeptigirl's OP, as opposed to sorting out the various meta-arguments. This thread is already sufficiently long, that I'm going to summarize the relevant points without quoting. I apologize in advance for any misattributions that don't at least have the redeeming quality of being funny. I will try to keep philosophical quibbling to a minimum, and present at least SOME evidence for my particular (current) state of belief.

First, the philosophical quibbling.

The question in the OP is an important one, but I think it can present a false dichotomy, from a theist's perspective (noted by DR).

Carl Sagan's statement is only true if religion is understood to be a collection of well-defined premises and conclusions about the world. If it is, every detail is equally significant, since believers can't point to a testable source of religious "knowledge" that allows us to distinguish between them (at least I don't know of any).

Why is "knowledge" is in quotes? I'm only a hobbyist when it comes to the philosophy of science, but I think that the word "knowledge" is often (and often, appropriately) given a technical meaning that is part and parcel of the premises-and-conclusions methods and is primarily related to persuasion. It's something like "results that another person cannot dispute given the validity of the premises". This generally excludes feelings.

It is an enormously powerful method, lots of good results, and it deservedly preempts the field where it applies but its application is not unlimited. Swear to god. [1] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftn1)

A lot of religious ideas/activities are older than this method. I think part of religion is still meaningful, even given the invention of the above method, but the part that remains meaningful is precisely not a well-defined set of premises and conclusions.[2] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftn2) Science handles that part better. As a result, religion does not have to be "true" in every detail in order to be "generally true" or valuable.

Claiming this imposes at least two requirements on believers: (1) I can't use religious arguments to justify requiring any other person to act the way I think they should (at least not those I have not personally begotten), and (2) Where science makes positive predictions and assertions that contradict religious claims, I have to concede to science.

At the same time it means I (and many others) can have beliefs grounded in one tradition without believing that all others are inherently false. Presumably this doesn't work for evangelicals, wahabi iman's or reactionary Shinto priests.

Of course, one still needs some evidence that the beliefs one holds are not false. But this evidence does not have to be the sort that means hearing it is automatically persuasive. Evidence that particular beliefs are harmful must be examined under the formal rules, however.

(2) Evidence. I have personally encountered people who acted in ways I deeply respected and explained it as a result of their Christianity. In particular, middle of the road, suburban mid-westerners with mediocre educations and parochial interests have routinely surprised me by being generous and sympathetic across race, class, gender and religious lines for religious reasons.

Please spare me the No True Scotsman fallacy. The NTS is a brilliant way of disproving the claim that Christianity is the source of moral behavior; that it makes people act morally and therefore must be divinely inspired. I'm claiming something different.

I'm claiming that some people – some personally known to me, some I have only read about - have used one version of Christianity to teach themselves how to be good.[3] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftn3) It's not an infallible method justified to industry standards, but I don't know of one that is.

Sure, there are other ways to do it. I remember in particular Wild Swans. The protaganist's Dad had beautiful morals grounded in communist principles. Her grandfather belonged to some sort of Buddhist secret society and reached similar conclusions. There are certainly humanists and secularists I would include, too.

The fact is, however, that I have actually been taught the methods and practice of my own tradition. Since I don't think the valuable parts consist of premises I can read like a rule book, or deduce from first principles I don't think I could learn how to practice another method properly without a lot of other practitioners around to learn from.

That's it. Have at you.

[1] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftnref1) Why swear to god, rather than talk about the limits? Because (a) I don't completely understand 'em - some are economics related I think– time/resources required to reach certainty vs too many decisions to make - and (b) I'm trying to keep the quibble to no more than three times the length of the evidence. Somebody better read should tackle that question. I don't think it's the controversial part.

[2] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftnref2) What part? See above. Granted, this is the controversial part and therefore I generally refer you to Douglas Adam's essay "is there an artificial god" which suggests some ways that invisible, unverifiable dragons may be useful.

[3] (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=3257658#_ftnref3) I understand that sounds circular. I don't think it is though. Good is standing in for a host of traits related to the rejection of solipsism along with empathy and identification with others. It's a personal definition, but I believe that this part - the measuring tool - does have to stand up to formal scrutiny.

epeos76

18th December 2007, 06:10 PM

Religious belief, as I see it, is harmful by definition. It never works for anyone as well as a reality-based worldview would.

This is a direct challenge to the my thesis, of course. A complete response would have to take on the task of pinning down the definition of a "reality based world-view" and then showing why I think religious belief can be a part of it.

Assuming you mean something like the naturalism described over at godless geeks:

There is an external world that exists independently of our minds.
There are quantifiable natural laws that describe how things happen in this world, and we can attempt to understand them.
These natural laws won’t change when we’re not looking; the universe isn’t totally chaotic.

I'd say that of course, any time you can get sufficient evidence to reach a positive result from these rules, you should use the result. I think there are three kinds of limits, though:

1. IMHO there are some inherent limits in how far this game will take you, but I'm still hoping someone with a real background in philosophy will undertake to answer that question.

2. As a matter of fact, we haven't reached a result on lots of important questions (consciousness, time, existence? Sure, but also humble problems like dividing a cake equally).

3. As individuals, we don't have the time or resources to reason from first principles or even evaluate all the relevant results the species has accumulated before making a decision.

A reality-based world view has to take into account the fact that there are, in fact, significant gaps where naturalism is not useful. I'll undertake to explain why I'm don't think I'm suggesting we fill those gaps with random crazy at a later date.

Mobyseven

18th December 2007, 06:24 PM

Actually, no joe you do NOT have my number. I am not an agnostic. I am a Pagan, and I specifically believe in Chaos Theory.

I too praise and worship complex mathematical theories. Let's be Godel friends!

V23

18th December 2007, 06:35 PM

Darth,

Is there any evidence that your god beliefs are true, while other god beliefs are false?

As I said earlier, I dont get into whether one's religious beliefs are more true than another, only if one system of belief is more valid.

In my opinion, a validity of belief is defined as a belief that actually works for you, and you not working for it. Unfortuantely too many people out there work for their beliefs, literally being a slave to them.

Some doctrines of Christanity, Islam, and Judasim fall into this cat. in my opinion.

A Christian Sceptic

18th December 2007, 06:39 PM

Skeptigirl,

I haven't taken part in this thread because 1) it seemed it was largely in part because of other threads I started and 2) the wording of the OP seemed designed to start needless arguments.

But based on your responses in other threads I'll take your word that wasn't your intent.

I still can't really answer the OP because of the following:
You are asking person who believes A why person who believes B is wrong. And asking person who believes B why person who believes A is wrong. All the while you believe C - that both A and B beliefs are wrong.

Generally speaking though - this is the process I use: I believe A, look at B, decide if I believe B, and change or stay the same. Any evidence I take into consideration is meaningless to someone who believs A and B are both wrong.

Even if person A and person B could have meaningfull discussion - you won't understand it because you're outside both of the belief systems.

What I mean specifically is this: V23 is a Panthiest. I am a Christian. I think it would be interesting to know what V23 believes and why. Although I would never think it would be right of me to tell him he's wrong. In a proper forum (not an internet forum - but probably better in a social setting) we could discuss what he believes. And I could tell him what I believe. And we could go our happy ways and alter our previous beliefs accordingly or not. But the moment either of us state "You're wrong because ... " any discussion will stop.

A simple example: Both V23 and I could talk about a Nebula where a star is forming. I could tell him that when I look at it I see the hand of god working - a star is being born. V23 might say (and this is probably a bad generalization of his believes - apologies V23), but he might say "I kind of know what you're saying. I see the ongoing oneness of life - a dead star being reborn". And an Athiest is going to say "What a bunch of lunatics! What are these two people doing talking about imaginary things like God creating or stars being reborn! All that's happening there is a bunch of elements from the dead star are turning into a new star due to gravity".

And really - where is the fun in a discussion like that?

V23

18th December 2007, 06:45 PM

I too praise and worship complex mathematical theories. Let's be Godel friends!

Godel can't prove he was here.

Lithrael

18th December 2007, 06:48 PM

So, some relatively sane adherents are offended by the OP because they apparantly hold only the general philosophy and not the 'facts' of their religion to be important anyway.

I can definitely respect that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a whole lot of adherents with less sane ideas about their religion than you. I'm not worried about people who use religion to teach love and charity, I'm worried about people who want it to be a bat for smacking things that don't agree with whatever they have decided their religion means. Don't believe those scientists, don't be female in situation X, don't get a transfusion, what have you.

I imagine the OP was meant to bait entertaining and smackdownable debate from more literalist types. But it seems they already know there are no feet for them when it comes to this kind of question. And rightly so, I guess - to a rational person, it would seem like this kind of thinking is easily shown to be wrong. Isn't it? I haven't read anything yet that has made me feel any more settled. So I don't really see why some regular posters are eyerolling like the OP is 'Who is better, Kirk or Picard.'

volatile

18th December 2007, 06:54 PM

If you don't care for my world view, presuming you think you know what it is, you are invited to enjoy your own world view.

You are free, Darth, to hold whatever world-view you choose. Just don't expect it to be beyond critique, and don't get irritated when someone dares question that which you hold sacred.

This forum exists for the very purpose of raising questions such as that posed in the OP. It's a valid question, and if you don't want to answer it, that's fine. It is certainly not an inappropriate, rude, presumptuous, unnecessary or irrelevant question though, and that you pretend it is speaks volumes.

Have you, in your 13,000+ posts here, not once questioned someone else's "world-view"? What have you found to talk about on the JREF forums if not subjects which, if not directly critical of the beliefs and opinions of others, do at least critique them?

And so I ask again - if you feel comfortable critiquing (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3253219&postcount=4) the (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3257785#post3257785) world-views (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3257394#post3257394) of others (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3249341#post3249341), why are your own beliefs sacrosanct?

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 06:56 PM

V23

18th December 2007, 07:01 PM

volatile

18th December 2007, 07:15 PM

The question might reasonably be re-stated thus:

By which epistemological methods do you reject the theistic beliefs of conflicting religions, and how do these same methods relate to your own theistic beliefs?

Or, more simply:

Why do you reject all Gods other than your own?

A legitimate question, and I, like Skeptigirl, post it out of curiousity rather than out of malice or mockery.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 07:20 PM

Skeptigirl,

I haven't taken part in this thread because 1) it seemed it was largely in part because of other threads I started and 2) the wording of the OP seemed designed to start needless arguments.No offense but this thread is simply the reverse of the thread you personally started. So "needless arguments" is a pretty crummy charge. However, water under the bridge, you are here.

I still can't really answer the OP because of the following:
You are asking person who believes A why person who believes B is wrong. And asking person who believes B why person who believes A is wrong. All the while you believe C - that both A and B beliefs are wrong.

Generally speaking though - this is the process I use: I believe A, look at B, decide if I believe B, and change or stay the same. Any evidence I take into consideration is meaningless to someone who believs A and B are both wrong.

Even if person A and person B could have meaningfull discussion - you won't understand it because you're outside both of the belief systems.

What I mean specifically is this: V23 is a Panthiest. I am a Christian. I think it would be interesting to know what V23 believes and why. Although I would never think it would be right of me to tell him he's wrong. In a proper forum (not an internet forum - but probably better in a social setting) we could discuss what he believes. And I could tell him what I believe. And we could go our happy ways and alter our previous beliefs accordingly or not. But the moment either of us state "You're wrong because ... " any discussion will stop.

A simple example: Both V23 and I could talk about a Nebula where a star is forming. I could tell him that when I look at it I see the hand of god working - a star is being born. V23 might say (and this is probably a bad generalization of his believes - apologies V23), but he might say "I kind of know what you're saying. I see the ongoing oneness of life - a dead star being reborn". And an Athiest is going to say "What a bunch of lunatics! What are these two people doing talking about imaginary things like God creating or stars being reborn! All that's happening there is a bunch of elements from the dead star are turning into a new star due to gravity".

And really - where is the fun in a discussion like that?While the I'm OK you're OK philosophy is fine, I actually have no issue with the people behind the beliefs, it sidesteps the issue. Think in terms of a 'set of god beliefs'. In the center is the individual's specific god beliefs, whether that god be something which is deeply involved with men or created the Big Bang and the work was done, the center is your individual beliefs. As you go further out from the center, you reach god beliefs less and less credible to the individual. For some fundamentalists that happens as soon as you leave the center. For those who view any monotheistic religion as just a different version of their own, that center might be very large. Regardless, at some point you reach god beliefs the individual does not conclude are credible. Whether that is clear out into Cargo Cults where we have an historical record of how their god beliefs developed, or whether it includes Greek gods who mingle with humans or Pe'le and the Sea gods of the HI culture, if you tell me you think all those gods are credible, then I have to ask what you are even doing here.

So wherever that line is for you, leaving out any discussion about the value of individuals regardless of their beliefs and the philosophy of not judging those individuals (they are not stupid merely for believing in gods, they can still be skeptics, etc) where and why does your god belief become credible when you can see you don't think all god beliefs are credible? And if you apply critical thinking to some god beliefs, why does that not apply to all god beliefs?

And isn't the fact that god beliefs depend almost, if not entirely, on where an individual was born and what culture they were exposed to, evidence that those beliefs do not depend on "faith" or "personal experience" but rather those beliefs depend on exposure at some vulnerable point in one's life?

slingblade

18th December 2007, 07:44 PM

As I said earlier, I dont get into whether one's religious beliefs are more true than another, only if one system of belief is more valid.

In my opinion, a validity of belief is defined as a belief that actually works for you, and you not working for it. Unfortuantely too many people out there work for their beliefs, literally being a slave to them.

Some doctrines of Christanity, Islam, and Judasim fall into this cat. in my opinion.

Is your user name Darth?

Do you get a hint I was asking him something and not you, since I personally addressed my post?

Could you butt out and talk to the others? I asked Darth.

V23

18th December 2007, 07:50 PM

Is your user name Darth?

Do you get a hint I was asking him something and not you, since I personally addressed my post?

Could you butt out and talk to the others? I asked Darth.

Hey slingblade - It's an open forum . . . I'll post what I feel on the OP, and I'll address what I like, just like everyone else has done.

If you don't like it, ignore me.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 08:00 PM

...Why are we hashing this issue between a person who obviously does believe in a form of a deity and one who doesn't, when one of the people in the debate can't even speak to the subject of the OP, UNLESS, there is alternative motive in why the thread was created, and sustained?

And I believe there to be. An Atheist can't answer to why his/her religious beliefs are better than mine, BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE ANY....This is a false premise which underlies what you, Christian and DR in some respects don't get about the OP. I certainly have a belief about god beliefs. They all seem the same to me. I see no reason any god beliefs are 'special'.

But I'm not asking about which belief is better, or who is better, or why something is better. I am asking about theists viewing their god beliefs as 'special'. Other god beliefs are not viewed as being 'special'. Other non-evidence based beliefs are not viewed as being 'special'.

You all seem hung up on the values and I'm not talking about values. Is that a defense mechanism? You can't answer the question, why are certain god beliefs 'special', so you attack the straw man that I am arguing atheism is superior? If you pick an outcome, science can measure which is better. But science cannot pick the outcome and therefore cannot determine which is the superior world view.

Science can address morals and values only if you add the criteria one needs to make those determinations. Unless we supply the criteria, science cannot tell us if theism is superior to atheism. Science can, however, address the validity of god beliefs. Science can be used to determine if there is an empirical or qualitative difference between Christian god beliefs and ancient Greek god beliefs. If there is no empirical difference, then calling one set of beliefs myths and the other "faith based" is disingenuous.

Who is superior and who is inferior is relative to the criteria you supply to the equation. Theists might be happier, belief in life after death is comforting, belonging to the church community might be rewarding. Atheism might result in a longer life for someone who turns to science for health care than for someone who prays. Atheists may have more fulfilling lives not spent wasted on worship rituals.

Assumptions that this thread is about who is better are ignorantly unfounded. DR draws the wrong conclusions about a lot of things and this is one of them. I did not choose to be an atheist, I am one because I followed the evidence. I could no more choose to believe in gods than a gay person can choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. Either you conclude there are gods or you conclude there are no gods. It doesn't involve judgment about who is superior. That doesn't mean I don't make value judgments. But it does mean asking the questions about god beliefs asked in the OP do not have to involve a value judgment.

The question isn't whose beliefs are superior. The question is, why are your beliefs (if you are a theist) special or different from all the other god beliefs you dismiss as false?

slingblade

18th December 2007, 08:01 PM

Hey slingblade - It's an open forum . . . I'll post what I feel on the OP, and I'll address what I like, just like everyone else has done.

If you don't like it, ignore me.

*** **.

V23

18th December 2007, 08:08 PM

This is a false premise which underlies what you, Christian and DR in some respects don't get about the OP. I certainly have a belief about god beliefs. They all seem the same to me. I see no reason any god beliefs are 'special'.

But I'm not asking about which belief is better, or who is better, or why something is better. I am asking about theists viewing their god beliefs as 'special'. Other god beliefs are not viewed as being 'special'. Other non-evidence based beliefs are not viewed as being 'special'.

Lando Calrissian: Pull up, all fighters Pull up . . .

Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

arthwollipot

18th December 2007, 08:39 PM

:popcorn1

Sorry, just lurking. These questions interest me too, because I feel the same way about the various religious beliefs that slingblade does. I too wonder why people feel that their own religious belief is different, qualititavely, from the beliefs of others. I've never had a satisfactory answer.

OnlyTellsTruths

18th December 2007, 08:42 PM

V23

18th December 2007, 09:27 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 10:18 PM

Tolkien's Middle Earth series of books are great works of literature (they don't suck), while Rowlings' Potter *cough*series*cough* of *cough*books*cough* are horrible works of literature (they suck).

This is not opinion, but fact.

Go ahead, ask me to provide evidence, I dare you!

Oh, you mean true as in "exists in reality", not as in "true to form"?

Perhaps change the topic to "Is there evidence your god beliefs exist in reality (i.e. outside of fantasy/imagination) while other god beliefs do not" so others aren't likewise confused?I think the confusion comes from the preconceived perspective of the viewer, not from the question. And I've done a fair amount of posting explaining that this is not about whose beliefs are superior.

From my perspective, there was never a question in this thread asking anyone for evidence of why their god beliefs were superior to other god beliefs. The question was about having no evidence one's own god beliefs were true while applying scientific scrutiny to other god beliefs than their own. Here is what the OP actually asks:There seems to be a rash of atheism vs theism threads going on right now. Several have requested atheists support their conclusions about the non-existence of gods. I could ask what evidence do god believers have for their theist conclusions but I already know the usual answers. I'm not interested in any of the faith explanations, they belong solely to the believer.

But I am interested in the evidence one has for believing in one particular version of god over another. If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence. If you are going to make some value statement, monotheism is superior to polytheism, I doubt you can actually support that claim but feel free to offer your evidence.

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true. And why do you think you just happened to be born where 'true' god beliefs were common and those born into cultures with other god beliefs were not so 'blessed'? Or do you think the fact people tend to believe in the religions they grew up with is worth considering as evidence against the validity of any god beliefs?

I am challenging believers here but please, I mean no disrespect. This is about evidence and beliefs, not about who's right and who's wrong.While there is one reference that if value is the empirical reason one wanted to use, they were not limited, but the reference to "I doubt you could prove" clarifies what I said more than once in that OP, this isn't about "values". It couldn't be more clear that the question is about evidence, not values.

Yet values were read into that post and the actual theme of the post was completely overlooked. Was it because it wasn't clear? I think not. It was clear to any reader not affected by a preconceived notion the question was about values. And were I to hypothesize why, I would also speculate that perhaps the fact a theist is unaware they are giving their own god beliefs special treatment also made them unaware that was the gist question being asked.

V23

18th December 2007, 10:24 PM

Perhaps change the topic to "Is there evidence your god beliefs exist in reality (i.e. outside of fantasy/imagination) while other god beliefs do not" so others aren't likewise confused?

I still like how you put the question though . . .;)

arthwollipot

18th December 2007, 10:34 PM

V23

18th December 2007, 10:36 PM

exactly

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 10:44 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 10:49 PM

Seems to me that putting the question in a way that won't either be misinterpreted (which has happened in this thread) or be offensive to someone (which has happened in this thread) is the hardest part.
This is annoying since no evidence has been presented the OP wasn't clear. Yes, we have the theists misinterpreting the OP, that might suggest a problem. But I went back and quoted the OP. I bolded and underlined every pertinent noun and adjective in it.

It's theist denial, and anger at having beliefs challenged, not the wording of the OP. Show me specifically what in that OP wasn't clear?

OnlyTellsTruths has the hindsight observation that the misinterpretation of a clear question occurred. I suppose I should have psychically predicted as much and repeated my question in multiple more ways than I did. :rolleyes:

arthwollipot

18th December 2007, 11:02 PM

It's theist denial, and anger at having beliefs challenged, not the wording of the OP. Show me specifically what in that OP wasn't clear?Since the OP was directed specifically and unambiguously at theists, and it is the theists who reacted wrongly to it, perhaps we can work together to try to find a way to phrase the question in a way that doesn't cause these reactions?

I agree, the way you worded the question didn't appear challenging to me - but then again, I am not a theist, and I don't know why theists react the way they do to things that to me appear totally innocuous. And since I am as interested in a proper answer to the question as you are, I think it would be worthwhile trying to come up with a more theist-friendly way of asking the question.

V23

18th December 2007, 11:07 PM

I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been the same regardless of how the OP worded it. But now that we have cleared up the matter 3 pages later, I doubt it will change anything in the thread. People get defensive when you challenge beliefs they cannot support or contradictions they prefer to remain in denial about.

I see V23 happily keeping the subject changed to the evil intent of skeptigirl's OP and her inadequate wording of the question (even though not a single atheist misread it). That's a good way to avoid addressing the real question.

Actually, the more I think about it, I dont know if you meant the thread to be a gladator pit or not.

(Bring out the Christians . . .release the lions)

All I know is that the OP was doomed because of the people that frequent the board, and that is probally the truth. I have no idea, really if you had alternative motivations, (you might not of), or you were just responding to another thread that was based from a theistic perspective, (which may have been your motivation, I again do not know.)

I have already said that I cant really answer the OP because, and I quote myself, "As I said earlier, I dont get into whether one's religious beliefs are more true than another, only if one system of belief is more valid.

In my opinion, a validity of belief is defined as a belief that actually works for you, and you not working for it. Unfortuantely too many people out there work for their beliefs, literally being a slave to them.

Some doctrines of Christanity, Islam, and Judasim fall into this cat. in my opinion."

And the reason that I maintain that stance is because I know that the only thing that can be gained from the OP is the obvious flame war that will be following an individual who struts out here and claims that "My God has a bigger penis than your God because . . . " and we dont accomplish anything other than a few Atheists get to stroke their ego with the kind of semnatic gymnastics that get us circular arguments like. "Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift . . " and other such garbage . . .

arthwollipot

18th December 2007, 11:18 PM

So the "validity" of a belief has no bearing - to you - on how "true" it is?

A Christian Sceptic

18th December 2007, 11:18 PM

I think the confusion comes from the preconceived perspective of the viewer, not from the question. And I've done a fair amount of posting explaining that this is not about whose beliefs are superior.

From my perspective, there was never a question in this thread asking anyone for evidence of why their god beliefs were superior to other god beliefs. The question was about having no evidence one's own god beliefs were true while applying scientific scrutiny to other god beliefs than their own. Here is what the OP actually asks:While there is one reference that if value is the empirical reason one wanted to use, they were not limited, but the reference to "I doubt you could prove" clarifies what I said more than once in that OP, this isn't about "values". It couldn't be more clear that the question is about evidence, not values.

Yet values were read into that post and the actual theme of the post was completely overlooked. Was it because it wasn't clear? I think not. It was clear to any reader not affected by a preconceived notion the question was about values. And were I to hypothesize why, I would also speculate that perhaps the fact a theist is unaware they are giving their own god beliefs special treatment also made them unaware that was the gist question being asked.

I think I understand what you are saying better, and still - sorry. I see no point in taking part. It seems you want scientific evidence on why what I believe is true while what V23 believes is not true. All the while - you believe what each of us believes is not true. What's the point? If I meet V23 in person someday then maybe we can ponder nebulas and the significance of things and share any scientific evidence we have.

None of my threads have been having you tell me someone elses beliefs were wrong except in regards to your general non-belief in anything supernatural. (So I suppose I'm asking why you think everyones beliefs are wrong.)

And, I might add, all my threads were built on posts in other threads. For example: The Athiests here kept saying there is no evidence for God - so I asked what do you consider as evidence. Scientific evidence was the fairly unanomous reply. Thus the subsequent threads that I posted about scientific evidence, etc.

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.

V23

18th December 2007, 11:21 PM

lol

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 11:25 PM

I have learned from my profession and education that people often cannot see what they cannot verbalize. Not many people recognized what nurses actually did until we started to describe nursing diagnoses. And some observers could tell you a patient was about to crash but they called it intuition until we got better at describing what we were observing. I remember great frustration once watching a child struggle for O2 only to have the physician on the phone doubt my assessment because I described the skin as mottled and that didn't communicate struggling to breathe to him. Now I would have no trouble describing what I saw.

Here we have atheists understanding the question right off the bat. And we have theists drawing on their existing concepts and then missing what the question was about. That is the concept of special treatment for one's own god beliefs while applying skepticism to everything else. Skeptic theists and scientist theists have been developing rationalizations for their irrational god beliefs. Define God as untestable, call the conclusions "faith based" and claim that this "faith based" 'thing' somehow exists along side of science and skepticism.

And most atheist skeptics and scientists have been satisfied with these 'special' rules for 'special' god beliefs. I recognized this same inability to see that one was applying special rules to personal god beliefs in the recent thread asking, Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99188) The atheists in the thread knew exactly what was being said, but at least some of the theists didn't just disagree or admit to and ignore the special treatment they were giving their own god beliefs, some of them truly seemed to not get the concept. How could they be unaware their god beliefs were just god beliefs? Maybe those were the god beliefs the individual chose to personally believe, but they were still just god beliefs like any other god beliefs.

Somewhere there is a disconnect. It isn't simply choosing one god belief over another. It is a failure to recognize one's own god beliefs are the same thing categorically as any god beliefs.

Well there's the link but the examples are dispersed among 42 pages, suffice it to say, the reactions from theists were similar to those in this thread, very defensive when most people repeatedly responded separating the fact god beliefs were not skeptical beliefs from the claims one who had god beliefs was then not a skeptic. If I come across more examples I'll post them below.

Looking back at the reactions to this thread, I believe that lack of conceptualization at least partially explains the reactions to this thread.

V23

18th December 2007, 11:28 PM

So the "validity" of a belief has no bearing - to you - on how "true" it is?

Hmmm . . .I would have to start a completly new thread to answer this one in whole, but I will give you the general gist.

A valid belief, to me, is a belief that "works" for me. In other words, from a totally religious/spiritual point of view, I will only accept a belief in something that alows me to gain results for what I want, even if those results are only tangible and realitive to me.

A belief, again in regards to anything spiritual/religious, that would be considered more "true" than another one, for me, would be ludicrious. All of them in one sense or another or one perspective or another is true, false and meaningless.

To me, beliefs are tools.

Accept them or not based on whether I am going to get something out of it.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 11:30 PM

I think I understand what you are saying better, and still - sorry. I see no point in taking part. It seems you want scientific evidence on why what I believe is true while what V23 believes is not true. All the while - you believe what each of us believes is not true. What's the point? If I meet V23 in person someday then maybe we can ponder nebulas and the significance of things and share any scientific evidence we have.

None of my threads have been having you tell me someone elses beliefs were wrong except in regards to your general non-belief in anything supernatural. (So I suppose I'm asking why you think everyones beliefs are wrong.)

And, I might add, all my threads were built on posts in other threads. For example: The Athiests here kept saying there is no evidence for God - so I asked what do you consider as evidence. Scientific evidence was the fairly unanomous reply. Thus the subsequent threads that I posted about scientific evidence, etc.

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.You still don't get it, reinforcing the conclusions I hypothesized in my last post.

I don't want you to compare your god beliefs to V23's god beliefs, I want you to compare your special god beliefs (the ones you believe) to your not special god beliefs, (the ones you don't believe).

ImaginalDisc

18th December 2007, 11:34 PM

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.

You are not seriously comparing your conviction that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever to your favorite flavor of ice cream, are you? Do you not see that one is a belief in the fundamental structure of reality, while the other is a matter of taste?

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 11:35 PM

Hmmm . . .I would have to start a completly new thread to answer this one in whole, but I will give you the general gist.

A valid belief, to me, is a belief that "works" for me. In other words, from a totally religious/spiritual point of view, I will only accept a belief in something that alows me to gain results for what I want, even if those results are only tangible and realitive to me.

A belief, again in regards to anything spiritual/religious, that would be considered more "true" than another one, for me, would be ludicrious. All of them in one sense or another or one perspective or another is true, false and meaningless.

To me, beliefs are tools.

Accept them or not based on whether I am going to get something out of it.That would imply you are not a skeptic. Many in the forum are not skeptics and are here to support non-skeptical positions. My questions are not addressing non-skeptical philosophies. My questions are addressing skeptic's special treatment of some beliefs while applying critical thinking to everything else.

V23

18th December 2007, 11:35 PM

It's the same thing. What I dont believe is STILL what I dont believe, regarless if its what I specifically dont believe, or what Christian Skeptic believes and I dont.

It's still the stuff that I dont

V23

18th December 2007, 11:50 PM

That would imply you are not a skeptic. Many in the forum are not skeptics and are here to support non-skeptical positions. My questions are not addressing non-skeptical philosophies. My questions are addressing skeptic's special treatment of some beliefs while applying critical thinking to everything else.

I am still a skeptic . . .just not in the issue of religious/spiritual issues.

I am a true skeptic when it comes to consparicy theories, alternate medcine, and about a thousand other subjects. But there is a clear demarcation line in me when it comes to anything religious/spiritual.

Why? Simply put I have come to realize that reality may not be as static as I originally thought. And it may be a whole lot more realitive than anyone could possibly understand.

For me, Skeptisim, is a trait and a tool. It's not a way of life. I don't build my entire belief structure on science, because science has a tendency to change directions occasionally, which by the scientific method, its supposed to do. I have no problem saying to a person that something needs more research, or the results just arent in for that subject yet. I also have no problem, seeing that I am a trained crime scene investigator with more letters after my name then I care to mention, coming to the could hard facts of what I may hold my hands, free of any self bias.

But the relm of the supernatural, specifcally personal beliefs not the variety of con-artists and snake-oil salesmen out there, is an area that I seperate my skeptisim from and alow myself to plunge into the unknown. I do it because I have realized that science hasn't got all the answers yet, or at least not for me.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2007, 11:57 PM

arthwollipot

19th December 2007, 12:00 AM

athon

19th December 2007, 12:03 AM

It seems you want scientific evidence on why what I believe is true while what V23 believes is not true. All the while - you believe what each of us believes is not true. What's the point? If I meet V23 in person someday then maybe we can ponder nebulas and the significance of things and share any scientific evidence we have.

I think we're simply after a line of reasoning which demonstrates why you see one view as significant over another. There doesn't need to be an acceptance that either is valid in order for us to understand your reasoning.

None of my threads have been having you tell me someone elses beliefs were wrong except in regards to your general non-belief in anything supernatural. (So I suppose I'm asking why you think everyones beliefs are wrong.)

It's not exactly a tough task getting folk around here to explain why they feel theism is unreasonable. Inviting them to do so is like inviting ants to a picnic.

And, I might add, all my threads were built on posts in other threads. For example: The Athiests here kept saying there is no evidence for God - so I asked what do you consider as evidence. Scientific evidence was the fairly unanomous reply. Thus the subsequent threads that I posted about scientific evidence, etc.

Was anybody upset by that? I thought they led to good discussions.

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.

Not at all. If somebody feels one ice cream flavour is objectively better than another, my belief in ice creams is inconsequential to whether they can reason why they believe so. Explaining a line of logic does not require one to believe objectively in the topic.

I, for one, am always interested in why somebody embraces one belief over another of equal speculation.

My view on the matter:

There are primarily two ways of creating beliefs: social and personal (or empirical). Social beliefs are based on adopting a belief based on the social group you're within. Empirical beliefs are based solely on personal interpretation of observations and reason which extends from it.

Religion, as a dogma, tends to belong to the former group. One's belief is chosen as the result of empathising with the social group one affiliates with. Following this, faith is 'tested' with the belief held as true and observations are sought to reinforce it.

Science differs to this in that while often a belief will again be adopted initially due to the beliefs of an affiliated social group, the ideal says you consider diverse observations and apply critical reasoning to the inferences in each case, as well as seek out reasons to NOT believe in the claim. Faith in the belief (where it is considered a strength if the belief is maintained in the light of being challenged) is not a positive thing in an ideal scientific scenario.

Athon

plumjam

19th December 2007, 12:03 AM

If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence.

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

V23

19th December 2007, 12:14 AM

So you believe gods control volcanoes and throw lightning bolts at people, V23? That would mean you'd have to discard natural explanations for those events. Is it turtles all the way down and did Coyote steal fire from heaven? Are Orion and Osiris up there in a constellation which we know now is just an arbitrary grouping a stars that when observed in 3D are nowhere close to each other as they were once thought to be?

Who is being insulting now . . . ?

What I believe, is probally very simular, if not exactly, what you probally believe SkepticGirl. However, as a Panthiest, I see the universe as a living breathing enity, completly sentient, and living in all of us. I see God in the details. I know that the clouds and the earth's friction casue static discharges, thus lightning. And that magma backs up in a given area till it explodes causing the volcano to erupt.

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.

V23

19th December 2007, 12:16 AM

I think skeptigirl is trying to find out why (some) people apply skeptical thought to everything except their own religious belief.

Atheist skeptics do not have subjects that they consider beyond skepticism, whereas theist skeptics do. A Christian skeptic can be skeptical about homeopathy, acupuncture and animism, but not about the Resurrection. Why is that? Why do they not apply skepticism to their religion when they apply it to everything else?

Is this an accurate description, skeptigirl?

My beliefs are completly up for critisim and skeptisim . . .Just realize that I may not come to the same rational position that you do . .

But feel free . . . I dont mind.

arthwollipot

19th December 2007, 12:19 AM

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.Not quite accurate as far as I can tell, plumjam. There's a difference between methodological naturalism and solipsism.

SomeGuy

19th December 2007, 12:20 AM

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

I don't think SkeptiGrl would fully disagree with you here.

But I think her point was that if you have hindu and a christian, they both FEEL their religion is the right one.

What she was interested in, if I understood her correctly, was if there was something ON TOP of that conviction that convinced you either christianity or hinduism was more valid as a description of reality as the other.

Those inner feelings have been subject of discussion on more than one thread here, while I think that Skeptigrl probably considers them not evidence in general of religion it is particular irrelevant to the OP's original question because we can not differentiate between a hindu's inner feelings and a christian's inner feelings.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 12:44 AM

Not quite accurate as far as I can tell, plumjam. There's a difference between methodological naturalism and solipsism.

7 syllables ;)

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.
It seems to me that people have been so indoctrinated in what you describe as methodological naturalism, that when a subject matter arises for which such an approach is inherently unsuited the default reaction seems to be that therefore the particular subject matter in question (e.g. spirtuality) can't have any basis in reality.
This kind of one-dimensional approach to everything seems to be the rule in this forum, though there are some exceptions.

Ho-hum.

V23

19th December 2007, 12:48 AM

yea . . . what he said . . .

arthwollipot

19th December 2007, 12:52 AM

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.So can you show me another method of settling questions - of any kind - which is equally verifiable?

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 12:58 AM

I think skeptigirl is trying to find out why (some) people apply skeptical thought to everything except their own religious belief.

Atheist skeptics do not have subjects that they consider beyond skepticism, whereas theist skeptics do. A Christian skeptic can be skeptical about homeopathy, acupuncture and animism, but not about the Resurrection. Why is that? Why do they not apply skepticism to their religion when they apply it to everything else?

Is this an accurate description, skeptigirl?It's a description of the problem underlying the OP question. I know why they don't apply skepticism to their god beliefs, however. What I'm asking theist skeptics to do is to address the fact they have 2 kinds of god beliefs. Can they justify that dichotomy?

Actually, rereading your post, yes, that is what I am pointing out.

V23

19th December 2007, 01:02 AM

So can you show me another method of settling questions - of any kind - which is equally verifiable?

I don't see how you can dicuss whether one religious belief is more true than another one unless you move out "methodological naturalism".

(For us laymen types, they are basicly talking about material causality and proofs therof . . .threw me for a loop too . . .):D

V23

19th December 2007, 01:04 AM

It's a description of the problem underlying the OP question. I know why they don't apply skepticism to their god beliefs, however. What I'm asking theist skeptics to do is to address the fact they have 2 kinds of god beliefs. Can they justify that dichotomy?

um .. .choice?

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:05 AM

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.That's stretching the definition of interpretation of evidence a bit further than it goes.

Evidence is empirical, repeatable, testable etc. Whether I choose to use that method of determining reality is my inner intangible feeling. But we are talking here about a group of people who have decided on using that empirical repeatable testable etc evidence already. So the question is about applying the tangible rules of the scientific process, not about the intangible decision to value that skeptical philosophy.

athon

19th December 2007, 01:06 AM

7 syllables ;)

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.

Excellent point, but for the 'erroneous' part.

First it needs to be established what the grounds for 'preferred' are. Without defining what makes something preferred it can't be said why a given philosophy is erroneous.

For individuals making up a social group, sharing a belief system - regardless of any relationship it has to an objective reality - creates cohesion. When this is used to make an assessment on objective reality for other social groups that lack the same belief system, it creates conflict.

So, from a social front, 'benefit' varies depending on the context.

For individuals, personal comfort can be gained from adopting a belief system independently of employing an empirical philosophy. However, where this belief system is used to make predictions on objective reality, it can fall apart. Believing, for instance, that prayer will heal over, say, medical intervention, chances are against you that it will not be the better choice.

If the context is more global, concerning communities who value manipulating their environment in some way in order to benefit from it in terms of health and wellbeing, then working with a religious view is sure to be inferior to working together with a scientific one. Progress in the world has benefited more from science than religion.

And, to be honest, I'm yet to find any community that has not seen the value in manipulating some part of their environment in hope of getting some benefit from it.

It seems to me that people have been so indoctrinated in what you describe as methodological naturalism, that when a subject matter arises for which such an approach is inherently unsuited the default reaction seems to be that therefore the particular subject matter in question (e.g. spirtuality) can't have any basis in reality.I guess this is where I have a huge philosophical problem. Metaphysics is akin to this same claim - it demands an equal place at the table for describing 'reality' as anything empirical, yet all metaphysical claims are equal. When all speculations are equal, how does it benefit anybody? We're left sharing our views, smiling...and have made no progress in identifying what objectively exists.

Now, as you indicated earlier, in a place where nobody values understanding objective reality, it might suit the community to invent a universe and, so long as they all agree, exist within it. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is providing advances in technology which you can be sure they'd be taking advantage of.

Athon

V23

19th December 2007, 01:08 AM

So getting to the nitty gritty . . . You are asking why we don't use skeptisim in our own religoius beliefs, right?

In other words, you want to know why we aren't atheists too . . .

OnlyTellsTruths

19th December 2007, 01:10 AM

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.

Is all of that not anthropic observation bias?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

A must read!..... Hey!..... I saw that!..... No skimming!........ Reading is comprehension!

V23

19th December 2007, 01:11 AM

yep :cool:

OnlyTellsTruths

19th December 2007, 01:13 AM

Wait..... yes it's not? Or yes it is....... Assuming yep is yes and not (possibly) yelp!

V23

19th December 2007, 01:14 AM

Is all of that not anthropic observation bias?

But again, as I said before, when it comes to spirituality, I believe that reality becomes mutible. It's up for grabs.

How I percieve the universe is not the same as everybody else . . .

V23

19th December 2007, 01:15 AM

Wait..... yes it's not? Or yes it is....... Assuming yep is yes and not (possibly) yelp!

Yes by your perspective . . .it would be.

OnlyTellsTruths

19th December 2007, 01:16 AM

Well it should be. <------This response is to the post above the post above this one......... I think......... or both.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:17 AM

Who is being insulting now . . . ?Why would asking you that question insult you? That doesn't even make sense. You implied god beliefs were all outside of your skeptical beliefs. I am merely asking you to think again about that claim.

What I believe, is probally very simular, if not exactly, what you probally believe SkepticGirl. However, as a Panthiest, I see the universe as a living breathing enity, completly sentient, and living in all of us. I see God in the details. I know that the clouds and the earth's friction casue static discharges, thus lightning. And that magma backs up in a given area till it explodes causing the volcano to erupt.

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.You are describing what you do believe. I'll ask you again, do you believe in all the god beliefs that ever were? You cannot. For one because a lot of god beliefs directly contradict other god beliefs.

You are doing the exact same thing as A Christian Skeptic. You don't get the concept that there are lots of god beliefs and you have simply chosen to believe in some of those and not others. You reached your hand in a bag, pulled out some god beliefs and declared that the very fact you pulled those beliefs out makes those beliefs exempt from any skeptical inquiry.

That would be fine, except, you took the rest of the god beliefs in the bag and tossed them out an declared those god beliefs would now all belong in with everything you view from a skeptical position.

And even that might be OK but you took it one step further. You no longer recognized the fact those other god beliefs were all in the same bag before you pulled some out and declared those beliefs "special".

And because you don't recognize those god beliefs all came out of the same bag, you don't get what I'm talking about.

V23

19th December 2007, 01:17 AM

yea . . . .for you . . .it should

plumjam

19th December 2007, 01:18 AM

I don't think SkeptiGrl would fully disagree with you here.

But I think her point was that if you have hindu and a christian, they both FEEL their religion is the right one.

What she was interested in, if I understood her correctly, was if there was something ON TOP of that conviction that convinced you either christianity or hinduism was more valid as a description of reality as the other.

Those inner feelings have been subject of discussion on more than one thread here, while I think that Skeptigrl probably considers them not evidence in general of religion it is particular irrelevant to the OP's original question because we can not differentiate between a hindu's inner feelings and a christian's inner feelings.

When religionists take the particular formulations of their beliefs and use them to argue absolute access to truth, and present their beliefs as a weapon of mutual exclusivity vis-a-vis other religions, then they are wrong, and it can have dangerous consequences.
Of course, that has happened at times in history, but looking at the real world, it is the exception to the rule.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism are all very receptive to the idea of the harmony of religions, and are generally highly mutually respectful.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism share their early origins, and for the great majority of their history Christians, Muslims, and Jews have lived together peaceably and with tolerance.
(You might like to compare this record with the historical record of the coexistence of more secular belief systems such as capitalism, communism and fascism; and find the latter coming off way second best)

Conversely, the impression given on this forum is that religions claim, as a general rule, mutual exclusivity i.e. 'if my religion is true yours must be false'.
This is just not true. And anyone with more than a high school level of knowledge about comparative religion would know it.

Furthermore, this massive straw man is commonly used to try to demonstrate that as "all religions claim mutually exclusive access to the truth" (or some such phrase), then "not all of them can be right, therefore all of them must be wrong".
This is more high school level reasoning. It's therefore surprising how many otherwise intelligent-seeming individuals employ it.

Sorry, Someguy, not aiming all that at you.. just making a general point. :)
On your last sentence, regarding the hindu and christian's inner feelings. Allowing for differences in language and cultural constructs, hindus and christians describe spiritual states surprisingly similarly.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:35 AM

V23

19th December 2007, 01:35 AM

Why would asking you that question insult you? That doesn't even make sense. You implied god beliefs were all outside of your skeptical beliefs. I am merely asking you to think again about that claim.

You are describing what you do believe. I'll ask you again, do you believe in all the god beliefs that ever were? You cannot. For one because a lot of god beliefs directly contradict other god beliefs.

You are doing the exact same thing as A Christian Skeptic. You don't get the concept that there are lots of god beliefs and you have simply chosen to believe in some of those and not others. You reached your hand in a bag, pulled out some god beliefs and declared that the very fact you pulled those beliefs out makes those beliefs exempt from any skeptical inquiry.

That would be fine, except, you took the rest of the god beliefs in the bag and tossed them out an declared those god beliefs would now all belong in with everything you view from a skeptical position.

And even that might be OK but you took it one step further. You no longer recognized the fact those other god beliefs were all in the same bag before you pulled some out and declared those beliefs "special".

And because you don't recognize those god beliefs all came out of the same bag, you don't get what I'm talking about.

1. When some one is belitting you, it is insulting . . . .and that is exactly what you were doing when you posted . . .

So you believe gods control volcanoes and throw lightning bolts at people, V23? That would mean you'd have to discard natural explanations for those events. Is it turtles all the way down and did Coyote steal fire from heaven? Are Orion and Osiris up there in a constellation which we know now is just an arbitrary grouping a stars that when observed in 3D are nowhere close to each other as they were once thought to be?

And i implied that MY spiritual beliefs were outside my skeptisim. Not because I am afraid to focus in on that aspect of my life, not at all, I do it daily. It is because I do it daily, and I come to the conclusion that all spiritual beliefs are neither proven nor disproven in the eyes of everyone. Its only in the mind of a single individual where that can occur, and to me, and how I see the universe, MY perspective, it does not disprove it at all. To me the universe reinforces it.

2. Have you not read my posts . . .I have said time and again that my beliefs are up for the scrunity and skeptisim of all . . .I don't care.

But I take issue with how you phrased your judging of me and my beliefs. I did NOT just grab a few from the bag, as you put it, nor did I just throw the rest out for no reason other than I felt like it that day.

It took me YEARS to come to the spiritual position that I am in today, this was not something that happened overnight. This is something I hold dear to me and bled in the streets for.

SkepticGirl, the universe does not bend to your preconcieved notions of what its laws are all the time, nor does it to me. Everyday science finds something new that contradicts what we thought was true yesterday, and we will again tomorrow. Remember that the next time you dismiss a person so blantanly and speak to the things that they hold dear as if they are things to be discarded at will . . . .

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:38 AM

I don't see how you can dicuss whether one religious belief is more true than another one unless you move out "methodological naturalism".

(For us laymen types, they are basicly talking about material causality and proofs therof . . .threw me for a loop too . . .):DBut I don't have 2 kinds of god beliefs, you and the other theists do. It is you who must have at some point made a determination these god beliefs are special and those are not. I'm not asking you to use my criteria. You had some criteria. What criteria did you use?

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:42 AM

So getting to the nitty gritty . . . You are asking why we don't use skeptisim in our own religoius beliefs, right?

In other words, you want to know why we aren't atheists too . . .You got halfway there then ducked the question.

You are an atheist. To paraphrase the well known quote, "We are both atheists, I just believe in one [or more in your case] less god[s] than you do".

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2007, 01:47 AM

When religionists take the particular formulations of their beliefs and use them to argue absolute access to truth, and present their beliefs as a weapon of mutual exclusivity vis-a-vis other religions, then they are wrong, and it can have dangerous consequences.
Of course, that has happened at times in history, but looking at the real world, it is the exception to the rule.
Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism are all very receptive to the idea of the harmony of religions, and are generally highly mutually respectful.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism share their early origins, and for the great majority of their history Christians, Muslims, and Jews have lived together peaceably and with tolerance.
(You might like to compare this record with the historical record of the coexistence of more secular belief systems such as capitalism, communism and fascism; and find the latter coming off way second best)

Conversely, the impression given on this forum is that religions claim, as a general rule, mutual exclusivity i.e. 'if my religion is true yours must be false'.
This is just not true. And anyone with more than a high school level of knowledge about comparative religion would know it.

Furthermore, this massive straw man is commonly used to try to demonstrate that as "all religions claim mutually exclusive access to the truth" (or some such phrase), then "not all of them can be right, therefore all of them must be wrong".
This is more high school level reasoning. It's therefore surprising how many otherwise intelligent-seeming individuals employ it.

Sorry, Someguy, not aiming all that at you.. just making a general point. :)
On your last sentence, regarding the hindu and christian's inner feelings. Allowing for differences in language and cultural constructs, hindus and christians describe spiritual states surprisingly similarly.This is all OT. There is no question on the table here about whose religion is better. Nor is there a discussion about whether theists claim evidence or get a pass because they don't claim evidence. There is no question on the table about absolute truths.

The question is, explain the difference from within the individual's thought processes how one set of god beliefs becomes above and separate from that same individual's other god beliefs?

V23

19th December 2007, 01:55 AM

But I don't have 2 kinds of god beliefs, you and the other theists do. It is you who must have at some point made a determination these god beliefs are special and those are not. I'm not asking you to use my criteria. You had some criteria. What criteria did you use?

The exact same criteria that you use to define whether you like a chabli vs. a chardonay. The diffrence is, it didn't take me 2 seconds to figure it out though, it took me my entire life.

And that is what you Atheists keep missing. My opinions are going to be varied from yours because we come from completly two diffrent points of view. (Genetics+Enviorment, aka [Nature+Nuture] = Point of View)

And my Point of View creates my opinions. Everything I am and everything i have learned is completly diffrent than yours. Because of that, what is relative to me, may not be relative to you. What I see, feel, and experience is going to be vastly diffrent than yours. It is not something where we experience the same things, because we dont. And if you had been in my position, to exeprience the same things, you probally would have experienced them diffrently because you are just a diffrent person.

And that is the point. It is not the same across the board. The data I recieved is diffrent than the data you did, thus we came to two completly diffrerent conclusions. You cant recreate my results because you havent experienced my life. Feelings and real world wisdom do play a part in this regarless of how much the stone cold atheists want to drag our beliefs into a lab and start looking for comparable data. Guess what, there is none.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 02:07 AM

No, you are also not looking at the actual problem. That is the, "ho hum, it's faith, not science" argument and I specifically did not ask that question because we all know the answer. This is not about "questions of a religious nature". It is about special god beliefs. It is about special treatment for certain god beliefs which is not afforded other god beliefs.

I am not the one applying two different standards to god beliefs. I am not the one claiming a pass on "faith based" beliefs while not affording that same pass to god beliefs in general, but skeptic theists are.

And just look at the replies here. How dare I ask? How dare I point out the incongruent thinking? I must have evil motives. It couldn't possibly be an interest in critical thinking.

Have you seen a single atheist get angry just for being asked to disprove the existence of gods? There may very well be rude posts and unhappy camper exchanges, but not replies of anger toward someone daring to ask the questions.

It is not faith at all. It's a shame that that idea is so widespread.. but that ain't your fault.
Genuine spiritual knowledge comes from inner experience, not from faith. Faith can be a necessary prior component to attaining spiritual knowledge. It's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to expend their time and effort in some endeavour they'll need some initial degree of faith that there'll be a meaningful result at the end of it.
That is true with all human endeavour; including things like science.
Even Buddhists, who don't talk much about God, need to have faith that their spiritual practices will produce some meaningful results.

Religion has to do with the spirit/consciousness. The spirit/consciousness is internal. It is not, as yet, intersubjectively observable via any scientific instrument, and may never be.
Methodological naturalism is predicated on the assumption that the subject matter of its investigations will be intersubjectively observable. Therefore to apply this methodology to spirituality is not appropriate.

Your original OP question is whether there is evidence that certain God beliefs are true while others are false. Then in your post you disallow the evidence derived from internal states.
By doing that you have precluded any progress in answering your own question.

I'm just wondering what kind of 'evidence' would really count to you, regarding God beliefs. Presumably something intersubjective, like religious visions shared simultaneously by more than one person.
These have happened in the past, and are predictably derided by the 'skeptical' community. Maybe you wouldn't deride them, I don't know.
If you did then you would have kind of painted yourself into an invulnerable position - not accepting subjective evidence, and not accepting intersubjective evidence.
So it all becomes a discussional dead end really.

As to people getting angry with you, well ideally that would never happen. Not being a proponent of Jref orthodoxy I get slated regularly. I can assure you that the vast majority of it here travels in the direction away from you. So every cloud has a silver lining ;)

plumjam

19th December 2007, 02:18 AM

The question is, explain the difference from within the individual's thought processes how one set of god beliefs becomes above and separate from that same individual's other god beliefs?

I'm not quite certain what you're asking for.
With each individual the thought processes are going to be different, obviously.
However, in genuine cases, the particular 'god beliefs' of an individual ought to come from their spiritual experiences.
Things like dogma and theology aren't it. Like the Buddha said, religion is the finger pointing at the moon; not the moon itself.
It's true that for an individual to be able to communicate their experiences to others in their society, these experiences have to be translated into language or other symbols. Thus the communication will be necessarily limited by the cultural constraints of that particular society at that particular time.
As the world, through history, has been made up of thousands of languages and cultures it is no surprise that there is some heterogeneity in the communications.

Henners

19th December 2007, 02:24 AM

Genuine spiritual knowledge comes from inner experience, not from faith.

So does the knowledge of being Napoleon.

One batty idea is pretty much the same as another.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 02:37 AM

So does the knowledge of being Napoleon.

One batty idea is pretty much the same as another.

aww.. :(
never been in love, huh? ;)

Henners

19th December 2007, 02:48 AM

aww.. :(
never been in love, huh? ;)

Genuine spiritual knowledge = Love?

Is that what you mean?

You seem to be saying that there is no place for poetry.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 03:00 AM

Genuine spiritual knowledge = Love?

Is that what you mean?

You seem to be saying that there is no place for poetry.

What I was getting at is that if something like falling in love happened only to a small minority in society it would be just as easy for the majority to dismiss it, as with your Napoleon example, as just another batty idea.
The only reason falling in love is accepted as a real and meaningful phenomenon is because it happens to most people.
No other reason.

Likewise, if most people experienced genuine spiritual experience, the phenomenon and its meaningfulness would not be routinely dismissed as it is now.
So it's a kind of mob rule, if you like.

I'm all for poetry. I don't quite get you on that one. :)

athon

19th December 2007, 03:11 AM

Well, since my last post was a raging success, I'll have another stab at this:

Conversely, the impression given on this forum is that religions claim, as a general rule, mutual exclusivity i.e. 'if my religion is true yours must be false'.
This is just not true. And anyone with more than a high school level of knowledge about comparative religion would know it.

Very few don't claim that. Most religions do claim that their view is exclusive - they have some form of equivalent 'there is no other God' view. The closest some of the more polytheistic - pantheistic - animistic ones will concede that another's religion is another 'facet' or view of their own; however this is not a comment of religious practice or dogma but one of theistic belief.

Furthermore, this massive straw man is commonly used to try to demonstrate that as "all religions claim mutually exclusive access to the truth" (or some such phrase), then "not all of them can be right, therefore all of them must be wrong".

You haven't demonstrated that it is at all a straw man, although you do respond with one of your own, ironically.

Theism does indeed lay claim to some truth of reality. Nobody believes in a deity which in their own mind is untrue or unconnected with their view of reality. However, when most atheists questions 'why', it is stating 'not all can be right...therefore all but one must be in some way wrong - how would you decide which?'.

SkepticGirl, the universe does not bend to your preconcieved notions of what its laws are all the time, nor does it to me. Everyday science finds something new that contradicts what we thought was true yesterday, and we will again tomorrow.

Sorry, but it really bugs me when this is said. It's as flippant as the remarks you're annoyed at skeptigirl for.

Science doesn't often contradict itself. I've described its actions to my students like this - imagine an image on your computer screen made of ten dots. You try to guess the image...and every few seconds the dots resolve to produce more pixels. Every change you guess at the picture. It starts off wild, but every time it gets a little closer. Some seem like contradictions (it's a car...no, wait, it's a boat!), but every guess is made with more observations, and gets closer to an accurate guess. As time progresses you can make better and better guesses which are more useful than the last.

Religion, however, cannot do this. Each change brought by more pixels means its more difficult to convince yourself the image reflects your first guess. In the end you rely on the right to call a boat a horse painted to look like a boat because nobody can go back in time and see what the original subject of the photograph was. Sure, it's your right to describe reality according to whatever philosophy you wish...but meanwhile others have sacrificed the comfort such a philosophy brings so you can have the way of life you have now.

Remember that the next time you dismiss a person so blantanly and speak to the things that they hold dear as if they are things to be discarded at will . . . .

Likewise, others have let go of comforting thoughts in favour of a philosophy that actually produces something for their community.

Athon

athon

19th December 2007, 03:17 AM

What I was getting at is that if something like falling in love happened only to a small minority in society it would be just as easy for the majority to dismiss it, as with your Napoleon example, as just another batty idea.
The only reason falling in love is accepted as a real and meaningful phenomenon is because it happens to most people.
No other reason.

Likewise, if most people experienced genuine spiritual experience, the phenomenon and its meaningfulness would not be routinely dismissed as it is now.
So it's a kind of mob rule, if you like.

I'm all for poetry. I don't quite get you on that one. :)

Christ...I was waiting for the 'love' analogy to raise its ugly head. How many strawmen can we fit into one thread?

Love is a sensation. So is the sense that voices in one's head are speaking to you. I don't suffer from the latter, nor do many people I know. But when a schizophrenic describes it, I can be fairly sure it's an actual experience they are having. Why? Because I know people can experience diverse sensations that I do not. When somebody says they feel some form of divine experience, I also believe them, in spite of never having felt it myself.

So sensation and experience aren't the point. We can agree they occur.

However, that is not to say that the voices mean people are really talking to you, or that the divine sense means there is a divine cause. When in love I feel that the person I love is one of the most perfect people ever made. It hardly makes it so, even though I sense it.

Athon

V23

19th December 2007, 03:45 AM

-Sorry, but it really bugs me when this is said. It's as flippant as the remarks you're annoyed at skeptigirl for.

Science doesn't often contradict itself. I've described its actions to my students like this - imagine an image on your computer screen made of ten dots. You try to guess the image...and every few seconds the dots resolve to produce more pixels. Every change you guess at the picture. It starts off wild, but every time it gets a little closer. Some seem like contradictions (it's a car...no, wait, it's a boat!), but every guess is made with more observations, and gets closer to an accurate guess. As time progresses you can make better and better guesses which are more useful than the last.
Religion, however, cannot do this. Each change brought by more pixels means its more difficult to convince yourself the image reflects your first guess. In the end you rely on the right to call a boat a horse painted to look like a boat because nobody can go back in time and see what the original subject of the photograph was. Sure, it's your right to describe reality according to whatever philosophy you wish...but meanwhile others have sacrificed the comfort such a philosophy brings so you can have the way of life you have now.
Likewise, others have let go of comforting thoughts in favour of a philosophy that actually produces something for their community.

Athon

Oh horse crap . . .There are about as many different fields of science as there are virginities lost on prom night across the US. And EVERY DAY we find something new, unexpected, and different then we thought yesterday.

And science does contradict it's self. Often. A good example of it is when we started looking at planets in other systems through some of our larger teloscopes and finding eratic orbits and gas giants well beyond any speculative range. Text books were rewitten and reputations faltered. And it happens all the time.

In my field, Criminology, we learn new techniques for crime scene processing all the time, and rediscover things constantly out any number of psych. depatments across the country that deal with abnormal behavior. It changes constantly. Hell, they are adding a new diagnosis to the DSV this coming year for people who are addicted to internet porn.

And by the way, not all religions are stagnant, nor do they all so ironclad as to not move with the latest. If you look back at some of my ealier posts you'll realize that I am not a member of any of the stagnant ones.

Oh and finally, I am one of those people that actually PROVIDE the way of life YOU lead. And I havent had to sacrified my beliefs to do so. Come to think of it, the lab that we work at has two Jews, a Catholic, a couple Baptists, and one gothy looking Wiccan.

All of which I am sure would thank you for your appreciation of Crime Scene Investigators, Criminalogists, and Pathologists.

Thanks.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 03:54 AM

Well, since my last post was a raging success, I'll have another stab at this:

Lol, sorry Athon. Your last post was, well, a bit long.. and I felt it was talking at cross-purposes to my point :)

Very few don't claim that. Most religions do claim that their view is exclusive - they have some form of equivalent 'there is no other God' view. The closest some of the more polytheistic - pantheistic - animistic ones will concede that another's religion is another 'facet' or view of their own; however this is not a comment of religious practice or dogma but one of theistic belief.
I don't think so. Muslims Christians and Jews might call it/him/her Allah, God, or Yaweh or whatever, but they agree they're talking about the same God. Hindus have many deities but it is recognised that these are various manifestations of the same Unitary God. Sikhs believe in one God. Buddhists talk less of God, though some strands such as Tibetan have various Gods and Goddesses, seen as real phenomenal entities. Buddhism nevertheless talks about the universal Buddha Nature, which exists as the supreme unitary consciousness behind all phenomena.. very similar to Hinduism's description of Divinity as Sat-Cit-Ananda (Being, Consciousness, Bliss).
So what can appear as big differences are really more about labelling and words.
Most religions, in whatever language, describe God as Love, more specifically infinite love. The fact that Buddhism, might, for example describe this as the Universal Compassion of the Buddha Nature, makes no real difference. It's pretty clear they're all talking about the same thing.

In fact, the commonality is really quite striking.

You haven't demonstrated that it is at all a straw man, although you do respond with one of your own, ironically.
Theism does indeed lay claim to some truth of reality. Nobody believes in a deity which in their own mind is untrue or unconnected with their view of reality. However, when most atheists questions 'why', it is stating 'not all can be right...therefore all but one must be in some way wrong - how would you decide which?'.

huh?

Science doesn't often contradict itself. I've described its actions to my students like this - imagine an image on your computer screen made of ten dots. You try to guess the image...and every few seconds the dots resolve to produce more pixels. Every change you guess at the picture. It starts off wild, but every time it gets a little closer. Some seem like contradictions (it's a car...no, wait, it's a boat!), but every guess is made with more observations, and gets closer to an accurate guess. As time progresses you can make better and better guesses which are more useful than the last.

Religion, however, cannot do this. Each change brought by more pixels means its more difficult to convince yourself the image reflects your first guess. In the end you rely on the right to call a boat a horse painted to look like a boat because nobody can go back in time and see what the original subject of the photograph was. Sure, it's your right to describe reality according to whatever philosophy you wish...but meanwhile others have sacrificed the comfort such a philosophy brings so you can have the way of life you have now.
Genuine spirituality is entirely capable of self-correction by testing dogma against inner experience. E.g. the Buddha.

Likewise, others have let go of comforting thoughts in favour of a philosophy that actually produces something for their community.
Spirituality does not exist primarily for social utilitarian ends. Spirituality, seen as the end goal and purpose of creation, is the reason societies, and everything else, exist in the first place.
As a side issue, history shows that the birth and flourishing of genuinely inspired religions actually improves societies, e.g. the Muslim Golden Age. Those Arab scholars were beavering away not primarily to better society, but to glorify God by advancing their knowledge of his Creation.

I less than three logic

19th December 2007, 03:59 AM

So getting to the nitty gritty . . . You are asking why we don't use skeptisim in our own religoius beliefs, right?

In other words, you want to know why we aren't atheists too . . .
It's interesting that you think using skepticism in one's religious beliefs is just another way of saying atheism. Surely there must be more than just one possible conclusion to be drawn from using skepticism in one's religious beliefs. Atheism is certainly one possible conclusion, but what about reinforcing one's current religious beliefs, or that one's current beliefs are incorrect and a different set of religious beliefs are correct?

V23

19th December 2007, 04:05 AM

It's interesting that you think using skepticism in one's religious beliefs is just another way of saying atheism. Surely there must be more than just one possible conclusion to be drawn from using skepticism in one's religious beliefs. Atheism is certainly one possible conclusion, but what about reinforcing one's current religious beliefs, or that one's current beliefs are incorrect and a different set of religious beliefs are correct?

OH . . .but that's not SkepticGirl's assumption. She assumes that if i used the same skeptic eye that I appy to other arguments to my spiritual belief system I would find myself an Atheist.

But I do agree with you, and I do actually evaluate my own beliefs in this way, I just come to diffrent conclusions than other people.

Mobyseven

19th December 2007, 04:05 AM

Godel can't prove he was here.

It's sad. He always had an inkling that a part of him was missing.

V23

19th December 2007, 04:09 AM

It's sad. He always had an inkling that a part of him was missing.

Do you know that he literally died of starvation due the fact he thought that the enviroment had been posioned?

plumjam

19th December 2007, 04:14 AM

Christ...I was waiting for the 'love' analogy to raise its ugly head. How many strawmen can we fit into one thread?

Love is a sensation. So is the sense that voices in one's head are speaking to you. I don't suffer from the latter, nor do many people I know. But when a schizophrenic describes it, I can be fairly sure it's an actual experience they are having. Why? Because I know people can experience diverse sensations that I do not. When somebody says they feel some form of divine experience, I also believe them, in spite of never having felt it myself.

So sensation and experience aren't the point. We can agree they occur.

However, that is not to say that the voices mean people are really talking to you, or that the divine sense means there is a divine cause. When in love I feel that the person I love is one of the most perfect people ever made. It hardly makes it so, even though I sense it.

Athon

I don't quite get your sensation/experience dichotomy. When I look at the clock here, it is a sensation. So too if I ask someone for directions. Their reply in my ear is an auditory sensation. It just so happens that both those 'sensations' manage to improve my level of knowledge.
Likewise with the sensation of love. When feeling love you are simultaneously improving your level of knowledge. You are getting closer to knowing the true nature of all reality. This happens to some extent with interpersonal love, it gives some kind of glance.
Unfortunately interpersonal love is impure in that it is centered on a particular fallible (according to our commonly selfish criteria), impermanent phenomenal aspect of reality, i.e. an ordinary human being. Thus it gets mixed up with egoic things like possessiveness, jealousy, competition, power relations etc..
With Divine Love these aspects are not present, and thus a full knowledge of the nature of reality is gained.

It's true that people can hear voices and be mistaken. People can be mad.
But you can't dismiss a whole zone of human experience merely because sometimes people are mistaken.
Scientists make mistakes too. They can delude themselves, cling to theories for emotional reasons. They can see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't want to. They can misinterpret results etc..
All that doesn't mean we should throw science out the window.

Mobyseven

19th December 2007, 04:26 AM

All of which I am sure would thank you for your appreciation of Crime Scene Investigators, Criminalogists, and Pathologists.

Thanks.

Australians are often accused of having 'tall poppy syndrome', but most of the time it's just that we can't stand arrogant wankers. You want us to thank you for 'providing the way of life we live'? News flash, moron - you're not more important than anyone else on this forum. You want us to thank you? How about thanking Athon - after all, he's the one teaching science to the next generation. He's been raising the next generation of scientists and crime scene investigators, and he's being paid peanuts to do it (Australian teachers are not paid what they're worth 90% of the time.)

Why can no one answer the question from the OP? We've had clarification upon clarification, and so far we've had a bunch of people describe the OP as a trap, and another one tell us that we wouldn't understand what he would say anyway.

I see excuses not to answer the question filling up four pages so far, and not one single actual answer. Wouldn't it be more productive to have an actual discussion, and not a 'dodge the question' marathon?

JoeEllison

19th December 2007, 04:32 AM

Why can no one answer the question from the OP? We've had clarification upon clarification, and so far we've had a bunch of people describe the OP as a trap, and another one tell us that we wouldn't understand what he would say anyway.

I see excuses not to answer the question filling up four pages so far, and not one single actual answer. Wouldn't it be more productive to have an actual discussion, and not a 'dodge the question' marathon?

Well, it sort of IS a trap... the trap is set by the nature of religious belief, not the OP. They simply cannot formulate a good answer, because their isn't one. I guess I feel sorry for them.

athon

19th December 2007, 04:32 AM

Oh horse crap . . .There are about as many different fields of science as there are virginities lost on prom night across the US. And EVERY DAY we find something new, unexpected, and different then we thought yesterday.

I notice you've changed this from 'contradicted'.

Of course science changes its mind. It's a great thing, too. But each change is, as suggested in the analogy, using more information and is a better informed estimate. Not some blind, wave of the arms, stab in the dark guess, but an estimate which is more focussed and more useful than the previous one.

The problem is that often, the most newsworthy stories are the ones which look like great big about-faces in science. Do yourself a favour and do what I do consistently - read the media releases from the sources. The bulk of science plods along with small discoveries, tiny adjustments and small changes to what we knew. Sometimes a new piece of information will cause great debate, and the loudest will get air time. Meanwhile the rest of the scientific community take account of the changes in evidence and are mindful of how confident they should be in a given theory.

And science does contradict it's self. Often. A good example of it is when we started looking at planets in other systems through some of our larger teloscopes and finding eratic orbits and gas giants well beyond any speculative range. Text books were rewitten and reputations faltered. And it happens all the time.

No contradiction there. Often the population who reads these stories find their high-school science is radically altered, but those in the field often know how confident they should be in a theory. Sometimes there are indeed big surprises, however they are relatively uncommon. Of course they tend to be big news, especially if there's a research department who's after funding, and the media sensationalises it.

Ask anybody who's in the science communication business - science is not the flippant world the masses think it is.

In my field, Criminology, we learn new techniques for crime scene processing all the time, and rediscover things constantly out any number of psych. depatments across the country that deal with abnormal behavior. It changes constantly. Hell, they are adding a new diagnosis to the DSV this coming year for people who are addicted to internet porn.

Again, so? You're in an applied field - I used to work in pathology. We were always getting new techniques. It didn't mean the old ones were useless; Christ, we'd used them quite well for a number of years. But new ones came in which made better predictions with more accurate results.

Of course in some applied fields it's less a matter of the science and more the politics of who gets to imply the newest applications. Education is a classic in this. New fads come out all the time; it's not that the last ones were useless, but rather that the new ones are being implemented by academics who have more clout than others (this sounds more pessimistic than it is, as clout is often reliant on the funding, which depends on who produced results in the past. But that's for another discussion).

And by the way, not all religions are stagnant, nor do they all so ironclad as to not move with the latest. If you look back at some of my ealier posts you'll realize that I am not a member of any of the stagnant ones.

No, I do understand that yours is less a religion and more of a philosophy. And you're of course free to follow whatever metaphysical beliefs you want. I can't pretend to understand why somebody would believe in things which are beyond observation, but hell, it's a free world.

Yet for religions, while some practices might evolve with social pressure, for the most part religion begins with the notion that it is true. That is what faith is all about - belief without the need to provide evidence.

Oh and finally, I am one of those people that actually PROVIDE the way of life YOU lead. And I havent had to sacrified my beliefs to do so. Come to think of it, the lab that we work at has two Jews, a Catholic, a couple Baptists, and one gothy looking Wiccan.

I wouldn't trust the Wiccan. :)

People are of course capable of cognitive dissonance. I've known biochemists who believe in vitalism, physicists who are NECs, and then there's famous examples such as Liebniz and his bizarre metaphysical idealist system which he adhered to in spite of his brilliant mathematics career. Yet in each case, the part that furthered their community was not their religious or metaphysical beliefs, but rather their scientific ones. And it only occurred in each case due to the dissonance - their ability to partitian their minds and keep their faith and their science separate.

All of which I am sure would thank you for your appreciation of Crime Scene Investigators, Criminalogists, and Pathologists.

Thanks.

Well, having been a pathologist myself, and currently am a science communicator, I've seen various angles of how people reason their faith and science. The point is, while faith can exist in the mind, the world view it offers does not contribute to the community. Hence 'in spite of' such philosophy, they contribute to progress.

Athon

I less than three logic

19th December 2007, 04:36 AM

OH . . .but that's not SkepticGirl's assumption. She assumes that if i used the same skeptic eye that I appy to other arguments to my spiritual belief system I would find myself an Atheist.

But I do agree with you, and I do actually evaluate my own beliefs in this way, I just come to diffrent conclusions than other people.
Where did she say that? Seems to me she's only asking for the criteria you used when you were evaluating your beliefs to reach the conclusion that you did. Perhaps more specifically, if your criteria used yielded two or more equally likely conclusions, what did/would you use to pick one conclusion over the others. I believe people are unnecessarily compounding the question by worrying about perceived motives.

V23

19th December 2007, 04:46 AM

Australians are often accused of having 'tall poppy syndrome', but most of the time it's just that we can't stand arrogant wankers.

moby . . .read Athon's post from ahile back where he said . .

Religion, however, cannot do this. Each change brought by more pixels means its more difficult to convince yourself the image reflects your first guess. In the end you rely on the right to call a boat a horse painted to look like a boat because nobody can go back in time and see what the original subject of the photograph was. Sure, it's your right to describe reality according to whatever philosophy you wish...but meanwhile others have sacrificed the comfort such a philosophy brings so you can have the way of life you have now.
Likewise, others have let go of comforting thoughts in favour of a philosophy that actually produces something for their community.

(boldface added)

I am just replying to what he posted . .

V23

19th December 2007, 04:47 AM

Honestly, moby . . .

Havent got a big head . . .just proving my point.

athon

19th December 2007, 04:48 AM

Lol, sorry Athon. Your last post was, well, a bit long.. and I felt it was talking at cross-purposes to my point :)

Meh, I was probably waffling. I do that.

I don't think so. Muslims Christians and Jews might call it/him/her Allah, God, or Yaweh or whatever, but they agree they're talking about the same God.

Hell no. While you might well get some who have such a nice view of it, I'd venture to say that most do not see the common roots equating the same gods. Of course, when even the God in the Bible seems to have multiple personality disorder, it's hard for us to understand how anybody can see individual personality in their god.

But in this, while we might see common heritage, I'd say a good majority of the faithful in each group would not say their God is the same as Yaweh is the same as Allah.

Hindus have many deities but it is recognised that these are various manifestations of the same Unitary God. Sikhs believe in one God. Buddhists talk less of God, though some strands such as Tibetan have various Gods and Goddesses, seen as real phenomenal entities. Buddhism nevertheless talks about the universal Buddha Nature, which exists as the supreme unitary consciousness behind all phenomena.. very similar to Hinduism's description of Divinity as Sat-Cit-Ananda (Being, Consciousness, Bliss).
So what can appear as big differences are really more about labelling and words.

Again, we might say that from the outside. But talk to somebody of faith - with few exceptions, the most they might concede is that another's faith is a reflection of theirs.

Most religions, in whatever language, describe God as Love, more specifically infinite love. The fact that Buddhism, might, for example describe this as the Universal Compassion of the Buddha Nature, makes no real difference. It's pretty clear they're all talking about the same thing.

In fact, the commonality is really quite striking.

Of course we all seek similar things in deity (we = humans). I'd be shocked if a deity prompted you to kill all your newborn and spare none, for instance. So of course there will be commonalities. But that is not the same as somebody of Christian faith conceding they are really worshipping Allah.

huh?

I'm not sure what is unclear.

Genuine spirituality is entirely capable of self-correction by testing dogma against inner experience. E.g. the Buddha.

It isn't ever self correction, but self reinforcement. Starting with the premise that it is correct and seeking affirmation is not the same as starting with a neutral premise and finding reason to be wrong in addition to finding reason to be right.

Spirituality does not exist primarily for social utilitarian ends. Spirituality, seen as the end goal and purpose of creation, is the reason societies, and everything else, exist in the first place.

Whoa. That's one hell of a claim. Spirituality is the reason why societies exist? I know of a lot of sociologists who'd love to see your evidence for that one. Societies formed as the result of a lot of influences, and while I'll agree that spirituality helped maintain bonds between individuals within communities, it is far from the reason societies formed.

As a side issue, history shows that the birth and flourishing of genuinely inspired religions actually improves societies, e.g. the Muslim Golden Age. Those Arab scholars were beavering away not primarily to better society, but to glorify God by advancing their knowledge of his Creation.

In societies where science advanced, it was often in spite of the scriptures of their religion. Mathematics and physics tended to rarely contradict religious teachings, so allowed room for science. In matters such as biology, it hampered it greatly. So while there are a number of more deistic beliefs throughout history where individuals sought to 'know the mind of god', by far the more common dogmas were those which inhibited freedom to search and speculate.

Athon

V23

19th December 2007, 04:49 AM

Where did she say that? Seems to me she's only asking for the criteria you used when you were evaluating your beliefs to reach the conclusion that you did. Perhaps more specifically, if your criteria used yielded two or more equally likely conclusions, what did/would you use to pick one conclusion over the others. I believe people are unnecessarily compounding the question by worrying about perceived motives.

Read the whole thread . . .

I less than three logic

19th December 2007, 04:53 AM

Read the whole thread . . .
I have, and I stand by my statement.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 04:55 AM

Why can no one answer the question from the OP? We've had clarification upon clarification, and so far we've had a bunch of people describe the OP as a trap, and another one tell us that we wouldn't understand what he would say anyway.

I see excuses not to answer the question filling up four pages so far, and not one single actual answer. Wouldn't it be more productive to have an actual discussion, and not a 'dodge the question' marathon?

It might just be that there are no theists here who are apt to (as the atheists would seem to prefer us to do) dogmatically argue the absolute mutual exclusivity of their own particular notional formulations about God.
Like I said earlier, that kind of understanding of religions is a pretty innacurate straw man.

For the geeky indoctrinated teenagers.
:D

athon

19th December 2007, 04:58 AM

I don't quite get your sensation/experience dichotomy. When I look at the clock here, it is a sensation. So too if I ask someone for directions. Their reply in my ear is an auditory sensation. It just so happens that both those 'sensations' manage to improve my level of knowledge.
Likewise with the sensation of love. When feeling love you are simultaneously improving your level of knowledge. You are getting closer to knowing the true nature of all reality. This happens to some extent with interpersonal love, it gives some kind of glance.

Sensations needs to be interpreted in order for it to be considered useful information. Looking at a clock, light enters your eyes and results in the formation of a pattern on the retina, which is interpreted by your brain. This is then made sense of, and your brain interprets the pattern to discern a time. That is what improves your knowledge.

Love is also a sensation, but the interpretation is less straight forward. It means that the other person has qualities which appeal to you in some form. However, unlike our reading of the time as 'knowledge', this sensation isn't literally interpreted in such a manner, but rather provokes a response. Most emotions are like this, which is where they differ to other stimuli.

Unfortunately interpersonal love is impure in that it is centered on a particular fallible (according to our commonly selfish criteria), impermanent phenomenal aspect of reality, i.e. an ordinary human being. Thus it gets mixed up with egoic things like possessiveness, jealousy, competition, power relations etc..
With Divine Love these aspects are not present, and thus a full knowledge of the nature of reality is gained.

Going on from what I was saying, this information is not present in the sensation. It is an emotion, and the information which is present in the reading of a clock - which relies on observing a pattern which relates directly and explicitly to other experiences - is not the same as in an emotion, which provokes a reaction rather than conveys explicit meaning.

It's true that people can hear voices and be mistaken. People can be mad.
But you can't dismiss a whole zone of human experience merely because sometimes people are mistaken.

Actually, you can. If it is more likely that people are mistaken, and we can show that the mistake is likely to occur, than such an observation makes for a better explanation than one which has no (and cannot have) evidence in support of it. The latter explanation is equal to any speculation which lacks evidence.

Scientists make mistakes too. They can delude themselves, cling to theories for emotional reasons. They can see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't want to. They can misinterpret results etc..
All that doesn't mean we should throw science out the window.

Ah, but that's the point. Instead of 'scientists' just read 'people'. It still means the same thing. Science, however, is a system which endeavours to reduce those mistakes as much as possible by removing the emotional desires. Yes, scientists still make mistakes and make emotional choices, but the criticism inherent in the system allows corrections to be made. This is not the case with faith, which instead embraces the emotional reasoning as evidence for the said faith.

Athon

Henners

19th December 2007, 05:02 AM

What I was getting at is that if something like falling in love happened only to a small minority in society it would be just as easy for the majority to dismiss it, as with your Napoleon example, as just another batty idea.
The only reason falling in love is accepted as a real and meaningful phenomenon is because it happens to most people.
No other reason.

Likewise, if most people experienced genuine spiritual experience, the phenomenon and its meaningfulness would not be routinely dismissed as it is now.
So it's a kind of mob rule, if you like.

I'm all for poetry. I don't quite get you on that one. :)

If Love is genuine spiritual knowledge, there would be no need to create poems about it, for everyone would have access to the same genuine spiritual knowledge directly. Consequently, Love cannot be genuine spiritual knowledge and your argument is wrong.

Your assertion that minority batty ideas are in a different category from majority ones is wrong too. It would only be right if it were possible to change reality using your vote. Or to look at it another way, if enough people thought that they were Napoleon, they would actually become him.

Like I said. One batty idea is pretty much indistinguishable from another.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 05:19 AM

Love is also a sensation, but the interpretation is less straight forward. It means that the other person has qualities which appeal to you in some form. However, unlike our reading of the time as 'knowledge', this sensation isn't literally interpreted in such a manner, but rather provokes a response. Most emotions are like this, which is where they differ to other stimuli.

Interesting, this love business. I would argue that the qualities of the sensation of love exist and act pretty much independently of the phenomenal qualities of the object of that love.
(I would say that the phenomenal qualities of, for example, a person, would be better described as attraction)
This would explain, I reckon, why the experience of love is described so similarly across time/cultures/circumstances.
Broadly, I'd describe the sensation of love as a diminution in the sense of separation, a movement away from exclusive identification of the self with your own individual body/mind, an expansion of identification, a sense of unity, communion, bliss and happiness.
In other words it is a unitary experience, as is spiritual experience.

This is why I say love is a knowledge experience too. Love is a method of communicating knowledge of the unitary nature of reality.
This will be why it is not an experience amenable to words, because words belong to a realm of knowledge based on definition, and thus implicit separation.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 05:36 AM

If Love is genuine spiritual knowledge, there would be no need to create poems about it, for everyone would have access to the same genuine spiritual knowledge directly. Consequently, Love cannot be genuine spiritual knowledge and your argument is wrong.

I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Are you saying that if we all have knowledge about something there's no need for us to attempt to communicate amongst ourselves about it? We all know about detectives, but we keep making those films and tv series.
There is a difference between human love and divine love. Poets generally write about human love. Some poets such as Hafiz have written about divine love, based on their spiritual experience.

Your assertion that minority batty ideas are in a different category from majority ones is wrong too. Never said that.

It would only be right if it were possible to change reality using your vote.
This is, in fact, pretty much what the modern materialist secular world has done: changed the currently socially acceptable definition of reality along the lines of majority rule.
So it hasn't been me who has been doing the voting.

Or to look at it another way, if enough people thought that they were Napoleon, they would actually become him.
Not really. In that situation the socially acceptable view of reality would be that most people actually are Napoleon. It would only be the "batty" minority who held the factually correct view of reality.
[/QUOTE]

blobru

19th December 2007, 05:52 AM

Australians are often accused of having 'tall poppy syndrome', but most of the time it's just that we can't stand arrogant wankers. You want us to thank you for 'providing the way of life we live'? News flash, moron - you're not more important than anyone else on this forum. You want us to thank you? How about thanking Athon - after all, he's the one teaching science to the next generation. He's been raising the next generation of scientists and crime scene investigators, and he's being paid peanuts to do it (Australian teachers are not paid what they're worth 90% of the time.)

Why can no one answer the question from the OP? We've had clarification upon clarification, and so far we've had a bunch of people describe the OP as a trap, and another one tell us that we wouldn't understand what he would say anyway.

I see excuses not to answer the question filling up four pages so far, and not one single actual answer. Wouldn't it be more productive to have an actual discussion, and not a 'dodge the question' marathon?

Moby, as a recent convert to the one true religion, and certifiable wanker, I believe I can answer the OP without dodging.

The religion I have converted to, the one authentic spiritual path to everlasting holiness, is Blism. What is Blism? you ask. Well, as I explained in the "problem of evil" thread, it is simply the belief that God doesn't want us to believe in Him. To reiterate, its tenets:

God allows evil as proof He doesn't exist, because He doesn't want us to believe in Him.

He created us to ask questions like "Why is there Evil?" and "How can we fight this evil?"

He worried if we believed in Him, we would get lazy and pray for Him to fight evil for us, and never learn to fight it on our own.

So He was very careful to wipe all fingerprints from his creation, and leave no evidence behind.

Above all else, God wants us to trust ourselves, grow up, and not worship Him.

God hates faith.

Heaven is only for people who don't believe in it.

Believers go to whatever hell they believed non-believers would go to.

Victims of evil can be forgiven the sin of belief.

So what then is the evidence that my god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false? Lack of evidence! Obviously, a God who didn't want to be believed in would leave no evidence. And look around: clearly that's what God has done. Who are we to doubt God's manifest wish not to be believed in? Blasphemers!? Wankers??!! For to worship is to wank. But let those other scaredy-cat "religions" reject calls for evidence; Blism welcomes such calls, for they reveal the very lack of evidence that Blism, alone among the world's creeds, predicts! Thus, lack of evidence is irrefutable evidence that Blism is the only true religion -- any wanker can see that... right?

Mobyseven

19th December 2007, 06:07 AM

Lolz at Blobru. :)

Any of the noisemakers want to throw their hat in the ring now? Or are they all too busy polishing their egos?

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 06:25 AM

It is not faith at all. It's a shame that that idea is so widespread.. but that ain't your fault.
Genuine spiritual knowledge comes from inner experience, not from faith. Faith can be a necessary prior component to attaining spiritual knowledge. It's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to expend their time and effort in some endeavour they'll need some initial degree of faith that there'll be a meaningful result at the end of it.
That is true with all human endeavour; including things like science.
Even Buddhists, who don't talk much about God, need to have faith that their spiritual practices will produce some meaningful results.

Religion has to do with the spirit/consciousness. The spirit/consciousness is internal. It is not, as yet, intersubjectively observable via any scientific instrument, and may never be.
Methodological naturalism is predicated on the assumption that the subject matter of its investigations will be intersubjectively observable. Therefore to apply this methodology to spirituality is not appropriate.

Or, to paraphrase the language of the playground,

"I know something you can't know."

plumjam

19th December 2007, 06:30 AM

Or, to paraphrase the language of the playground,

"I know something you can't know."

Not at all. There are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.
The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

Henners

19th December 2007, 06:31 AM

I don't quite follow your reasoning here. Are you saying that if we all have knowledge about something there's no need for us to attempt to communicate amongst ourselves about it? We all know about detectives, but we keep making those films and tv series.
There is a difference between human love and divine love. Poets generally write about human love. Some poets such as Hafiz have written about divine love, based on their spiritual experience.

The phrase "Genuine Spiritual Knowledge" is your own. Are you disowning it?

Never said that.

This is you saying it:

What I was getting at is that if something like falling in love happened only to a small minority in society it would be just as easy for the majority to dismiss it, as with your Napoleon example, as just another batty idea.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 06:42 AM

The phrase "Genuine Spiritual Knowledge" is your own. Are you disowning it?

This is you saying it:

No, and no.

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 06:43 AM

You are not seriously comparing your conviction that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever to your favorite flavor of ice cream, are you?

Well - since I do not have that conviction the answer would be "NO".

volatile

19th December 2007, 06:44 AM

Well - since I do not have that conviction the answer would be "NO".

You're not a Christian, then?

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 07:08 AM

You're not a Christian, then?

Yes I am a Christian. But I don't believe in "an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever "

lupus_in_fabula

19th December 2007, 07:10 AM

Or, to paraphrase the language of the playground,

"I know something you can't know."

In many of these reports regarding profound religious experiences, awakenings, enlightenments or extraordinary experiences of unity (east and west), the basic knowledge gained seems to be that god is pretty much equated with reality, or existence. If god is reality, then there’s really no point of proving gods existence, is there?

Up for grabs are the interpretations and manifestations of how people ought to live their life. It has nothing to do with the existence of god, but a whole lot to do with how god (reality) is acknowledged in the minds of humans.

“I am that I am”, “Before Abraham was, I am”, “Atman is Brahman”, The Dao that can be spoken of, is not the real Dao” etc. etc… Pretty hard to argue against that or create an idol that would encompass that. Yet people do exactly that, and I have no idea why – kind of like arguing against reality while pissing against the wind. There’s an old saying: one who sets out to find god, finds himself and one who sets out to find himself, finds god. The experience of I am seems to be the beginning and the end to this journey.

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 07:13 AM

Not at all. There are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.
The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

It's a bit like homoeopathy then, really.

Anything works, for a given value of works.

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 07:15 AM

Hey V23 and anyone else interested,

If you like pondering things on the universe here is a post I posted in another thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3239317#post3239317

It was not intended as proof of God at all, but rather just a list of some of the crazy things scientists ask us to believe and which I have no problem believing.

Also - here is a link to the thread on whether Science can prove there is no god
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3241227#post3241227

The reason I did that thread was because of the following:
I asked why people don't believe in a god of any sort - Answer: there is no evidence
I asked what sort of evidence - Answer: Scientific
I asked if supernatural events could ever be proven, especially a one time event, with Science - Answer: No

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 07:15 AM

Yes. But I don't believe in "an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever "

Those two statements are impossible to reconcile.

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 07:21 AM

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 07:24 AM

I corrected it because it was unclear. Here it is again:

Yes I am a Christian. But I don't believe in "an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever "

Please elaborate. The existence of the "one true god" and his "judgement" have been foundation dogma of Christianity since the Nicene creed. If you claim to be Christian, you must believe in "an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever."

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:27 AM

It's a bit like homoeopathy then, really.

Yeah, as in fish and bicycle.
:rolleyes:

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 07:30 AM

Yeah, as in fish and bicycle.
:rolleyes:

As in ways of knowing.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:35 AM

In many of these reports regarding profound religious experiences, awakenings, enlightenments or extraordinary experiences of unity (east and west), the basic knowledge gained seems to be that god is pretty much equated with reality, or existence. If god is reality, then there’s really no point of proving gods existence, is there?

Up for grabs are the interpretations and manifestations of how people ought to live their life. It has nothing to do with the existence of god, but a whole lot to do with how god (reality) is acknowledged in the minds of humans.

“I am that I am”, “Before Abraham was, I am”, “Atman is Brahman”, The Dao that can be spoken of, is not the real Dao” etc. etc… Pretty hard to argue against that or create an idol that would encompass that. Yet people do exactly that, and I have no idea why – kind of like arguing against reality while pissing against the wind. There’s an old saying: one who sets out to find god, finds himself and one who sets out to find himself, finds god. The experience of I am seems to be the beginning and the end to this journey.

Finally!
Someone who knows what they're talking about. Respect :)

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 07:37 AM

Finally!
Someone who knows what they're talking about. Respect :)

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

That's amazing. So, how do you tell the difference between meeting God and a hallucination?

Henners

19th December 2007, 07:39 AM

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 07:40 AM

I would add that the experience of I am at the end of the journey is (they report) an entirely other experience from our ordinary everyday experience of I am.
(Our current experience of I am being that of a finite human ego attached and limited to a particular mind/body..etc.. and the I am at the end of the journey being infinite in nature.)

Well, if there are a number of these beings who are now infinite in nature, I guess it would explain the queues at the post office.

Are all these beings over 75? I think I've met them.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:41 AM

As in ways of knowing.

More fish more bicycles.
What does homeopathy have to do with it? That's a form of physical therapy, and is therefore amenable to scientific testing.
Inner spiritual development, being confined to the consciousness of that individual, is not.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:46 AM

That's amazing. So, how do you tell the difference between meeting God and a hallucination?

According to those who have been there meeting God marks the end of being fooled by the hallucination we're all currently being fooled by, including you and me.
So, in short, God realisation is the only non-hallucination.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 07:47 AM

According to those who have been there meeting God marks the end of being fooled by the hallucination we're all currently being fooled by, including you and me.
So, in short, God realisation is the only non-hallucination.

What evidence is that based on?

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 07:54 AM

More fish more bicycles.
What does homeopathy have to do with it? That's a form of physical therapy, and is therefore amenable to scientific testing.
Inner spiritual development, being confined to the consciousness of that individual, is not.

Don't let homoeopaths hear you say that! Trying to force your notions of materialistic testing upon them - for shame.

No, our current testing paradigm is insufficient to comment on homoeopathy. We know that there is an effect (because of our personal experiences), and we know that scientific testing shows that there is no effect.

Therefore, homoeopathy must logically be based on something that is currently (maybe permanently) outside of the realm of scientific testing. It probably acts in a quantum manner, directly on the consciousness of the individual. This realignment leads directly to the holistic healing of the patient.

Although it's not currently testable by boring old science, which keeps coming up with the wrong answer, there are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.

The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:56 AM

What evidence is that based on?

What forms of evidence would you be willing to accept as valid?

plumjam

19th December 2007, 07:59 AM

Don't let homoeopaths hear you say that! Trying to force your notions of materialistic testing upon them - for shame.

No, our current testing paradigm is insufficient to comment on homoeopathy. We know that there is an effect (because of our personal experiences), and we know that scientific testing shows that there is no effect.

Therefore, homoeopathy must logically be based on something that is currently (maybe permanently) outside of the realm of scientific testing. It probably acts in a quantum manner, directly on the consciousness of the individual. This realignment leads directly to the holistic healing of the patient.

Although it's not currently testable by boring old science, which keeps coming up with the wrong answer, there are well defined, tried and tested methodologies for knowing about it.

The problem is that they take much more time, effort, and commitment of the whole person than merely flicking open a textbook or some such.

Tut tut.
Silly.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 08:02 AM

What forms of evidence would you be willing to accept as valid?

Quite an long list. For example:

If the God figure could make specific and precise predictions about the future with no failure rate.

If the God figure could modify the universe in reality defying ways that would be called "miracles."

If all people who had such an experience consistently had the same experience, without any mutual contradiction.

Darth Rotor

19th December 2007, 08:05 AM

But in as much as you think I'm more interested in theist bashing than simply challenging theist beliefs, you are wrong about the thread and about me, of which the latter is frequently the case.
Funny, you consistently are wrong about me. Maybe we ought to get married. :p (That was a jest.)
Why do you participate in the JREF forum?
Because I feel like it, and because I tend to find intelligent people with whom to bat around ideas. Many of them look at the world differently than I do, which offers my brain a chance to wrap itself around problems from multiple points of view.

You have a problem with that?
I assume you are not here to support one of the usual woos like homeopathy or 911 conspiracy theories. That would imply you are here because you are a skeptic of some kind.
I arrived here from the best page in the universe, via a link, to the 9-11 CT page, and the Loose Change tomfoolery. Upon assessing what was up, I went into attack dog mode for a very specific purpose. For reasons of varying weight, I then checked out a few other forums and found a lot of interesting stuff to discuss.

I also found some friends.
Would you also say the following?

You want to be an astrolger? Good for you.
Go for it. Whatever rows your boat.
Homeopathy brings you the peace of good health? Go for it.
Sure. My sister in law is huge into it. If it kills you, the joke's on you, eh?
Bigfoot your bag? Wallow in your joy.
The Quest for the Holy Graille (or Bigfoot) seems to be a human trait that has stood the test of time. Everyone needs a hobby. Mine is golf, and for the last year or so, kicking around stuff on this set of forums.
"Loose Change" to your taste? Enjoy.
Absolutely. And enjoy the flames whey you make idiotic attempts at describing how the towers went down, since free speech is a neat thing: you are free to say whatever you like, and free to be criticized for it. You are also free to follow Rule Number One, which is

Never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shut. (I've had trouble with that rule from time to time.)

My core objection to "Loose Change" is the slander against certain persons about whom I care, and the general willful ignorance in pursuit of that slander. As a pilot, I cannot fathom how hard some folks try to deny some very simple things, like gravity, lift, and such. The motive is best left to the various CT discussions. I think Gravy is a great guy.

I think Morgan Reynolds, for example, is a whack job. He is free to be one. I have advised my sister in law that her kids, who go to A & M, ought to be wary of signing up for any of his econ classes, due to his penchant for moonbattery. As to him personally, I hope it makes him happy. If all his obsession with the 9-11 nonsense only makes him angrier, he's wasting a lot of energy.

His choice.

Put in a general position, we all have the freedom to go to Hell in our own special and peculiar way, or to arrive elsewhere, or nowhere, in a like manner.

You have a problem with that?
I'm certainly not angry at people for their beliefs.
Good. Your tone is consistent in that regard.
And I only get mad at the beliefs like the anti-vaxers who essentially attack my profession and lead parents away from vaccinating their kids.
I share some of your frustration with that, but not being in the field, I suspect your frustration is more profound than mine.
But that doesn't mean I wouldn't challenge any of those beliefs which are relatively harmless. Of course I would. I want to promote critical thinking.
Interesting cover story.
If you don't want to discuss why one god belief is valid and another invalid, perhaps you'd care to justify why those god beliefs you mentioned are peachy, but other woo may be challenged?
I see that your attempt at equivalence between philosophy and medicine arrives on schedule.

Note: if three billion people die tomorrow, all at once, it would not matter in the greater scheme of things. In the short term, there would be much suckage, and much sorrow, and doubtless much fear.

There would still be three billion people, and a bit more, on the Earth, who could pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and keep on keeping on.

DR

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 08:28 AM

Tut tut.
Silly.

Well yes. That's my point.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 08:31 AM

Quite an long list. For example:

If the God figure could make specific and precise predictions about the future with no failure rate.

Not asking much then, eh? :p

Spiritual personalities do show signs of being able to predict the future. It seems that they generally don't avail themselves of this ability. Or keep it to themselves. Typically their main preoccupation is helping mankind towards spiritual advancement, rather than satisfying idle curiosity.
However, on the occasions when predictions have been made and carried out, such as Fatima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
the skeptics simply carry on looking for reasons to dismiss such events. So, really, why should they bother?

If the God figure could modify the universe in reality defying ways that would be called "miracles."

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.
But would you believe them?
I doubt it.

If all people who had such an experience consistently had the same experience, without any mutual contradiction.

Your desire for "all" and "without any mutual contradiction" is unrealistic. Nowhere in life is that to be found.
However, spiritual experience is described very similarly across cultures and historical periods.
For evidence read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 08:36 AM

Well yes. That's my point.

You took an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon like homeopathy and tried to equate it with an intersubjectively non-investigable phenomenon, namely internal spiritual experience.
That was the silly part.
Can't you see the difference?

Henners

19th December 2007, 08:37 AM

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.

However, the quality control on the miracle pass rate is governed by God-of-the-Gaps.

Thus we had, for example, a miracle being counted towards JPII's canonisation until it was found out that for JPII to have organised the event he would have needed to travel back in time to when he wasn't dead yet.

Woo.

Henners

19th December 2007, 08:39 AM

You took an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon like homeopathy and tried to equate it with an intersubjectively non-investigable phenomenon, namely internal spiritual experience.
That was the silly part.
Can't you see the difference?

The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist.

Can you see where you made the mistake?

You were using words without considering their meanings. Again.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 08:43 AM

Not asking much then, eh? :p

Not from an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Spiritual personalities do show signs of being able to predict the future. It seems that they generally don't avail themselves of this ability. Or keep it to themselves. Typically their main preoccupation is helping mankind towards spiritual advancement, rather than satisfying idle curiosity.
However, on the occasions when predictions have been made and carried out, such as Fatima http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_sun
the skeptics simply carry on looking for reasons to dismiss such events. So, really, why should they bother?

Because people with ciritical thinking skills have no reason to believe in them, and without verifiable evidence, people can believe all sorts of things.

In the Roman Catholic Church alone there are more than 10,000 saints. As I understand it to be a saint you need to be associated with at least 2 miracles. So no shortage of miracles out there.
But would you believe them?
I doubt it.

Miracles that have left no evidence.

Your desire for "all" and "without any mutual contradiction" is unrealistic. Nowhere in life is that to be found.
However, spiritual experience is described very similarly across cultures and historical periods.
For evidence read William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism.

How is it unrealistic to expect an omnipotent, omniscient, good being to provide constitent revelations? The god of the Pauline letters bears no resemblence to the god of Exodus, who bears to resemblence to the god of The Book of Job, let alone the gods of other religons. If mystical experiences constitute evidence of supernatural beings, why can they be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals, and why are they so variable?

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 08:44 AM

You took an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon like homeopathy and tried to equate it with an intersubjectively non-investigable phenomenon, namely internal spiritual experience.
That was the silly part.
Can't you see the difference?

Homoeopaths claim that homoeopathy is not an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon. Well, they don't use those words, but they claim it is not measurable in ways we currently understand. Whilst at the same time being obvious to those in the know.

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 08:45 AM

Please elaborate. The existence of the "one true god" and his "judgement" have been foundation dogma of Christianity since the Nicene creed. If you claim to be Christian, you must believe in "an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever."

No - I won't elaborate. What's the point on discussing particulars of the Christian faith with a non-Christian - especially when you've already decided what Christians are supposed to believe? If you were a Christian I'd just tell you to read your bible and make up your own mind. Suffice it to say "a fiery pit of endless torment forever" is not a foundation dogma my faith is built on.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 08:48 AM

The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist.

Can you see where you made the mistake?

You were using words without considering their meanings. Again.

So I could usefully investigate the thought you had ten seconds before reading this sentence?
How could I do it?
Only by asking you.
And to a skeptic that would be useless, because I could never demonstrate that you weren't lying, or misremembering.
Everything can be investigated, but not everything is amenable to the kind of intersubjective investigation that would satisfy a skeptic.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 08:50 AM

No - I won't elaborate. What's the point on discussing particulars of the Christian faith with a non-Christian - especially when you've already decided what Christians are supposed to believe? If you were a Christian I'd just tell you to read your bible and make up your own mind. Suffice it to say "a fiery pit of endless torment forever" is not a foundation dogma my faith is built on.

I have read the Bible, from cover to cover. Have you? Have you read the Nicene creed? Have you read of the various and sundry sects violently abolished in the name of Christian dogma? What does Consubstantiality mean, and why were people killed over it?

If you could please explain what supernatural elements you believe in, and explain why you accept those but reject all others, that would answer the question in the OP. What makes your pet beliefs better than all the others?

Darth Rotor

19th December 2007, 08:54 AM

I have read the Bible, from cover to cover. Have you? Have you read the Nicene creed? Have you read of the various and sundry sects violently abolished in the name of Christian dogma? What does Consubstantiality mean, and why were people killed over it?

If you could please explain what supernatural elements you believe in, and explain why you accept those but reject all others, that would answer the question in the OP. What makes your pet beliefs better than all the others?
Thought:

Why did you choose that shirt to wear this morning?

It was available.

It fits (works for) you.

DR

plumjam

19th December 2007, 08:54 AM

Homoeopaths claim that homoeopathy is not an intersubjectively investigable phenomenon. Well, they don't use those words, but they claim it is not measurable in ways we currently understand. Whilst at the same time being obvious to those in the know.

I have no interest in homeopathy. Do they really claim it's obvious to those in the know? What aspect do they claim is obvious? That it works? Or how it works?

That it might not be measurable in ways we currently understand is an entirely reasonable position to hold. In the late 19th Century scientists scoffed at the idea of the existence of electromagnetic waves. Now our societies are more or less based around them.

But we're getting OT.

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 08:55 AM

I have read the Bible, from cover to cover. Have you? Have you read the Nicene creed? Have you read of the various and sundry sects violently abolished in the name of Christian dogma? What does Consubstantiality mean, and why were people killed over it?

If you could please explain what supernatural elements you believe in, and explain why you accept those but reject all others, that would answer the question in the OP. What makes your pet beliefs better than all the others?

Actually, that wouldn't answer the OP at all. She wants "scientific evidence" on why what I believe is true and someone elses beliefs are false.

Beth

19th December 2007, 08:57 AM

I am interested in how theists can support their cognitive dissonance of recognizing other god beliefs are false, yet justifying their own gods beliefs are true.

Skeptigirl, I think that one problem with getting answers to this question is that the theists who have been posting here don't believe that all other god beliefs are false. While your statement may be true for many, perhaps even most believers, it does not appear to be a true statement for the theists who post in this forum. Thus, the assumption behind your question - that they recognize other god beliefs as false while claiming theirs is true - is not accurate. Theists who have posted here reject the simplistic "invisible sky daddy" charactorization of ALL gods, so they are equally disbelieving of that charactorization of their god (or goddess) as they are of all the other gods, be they Allah, Zeus or Pele.

If you want an answer to that question, I think you will have to start by trying to understand what it is they do believe in. (Hint: It isn't an invisible sky daddy that requires blind unthinking faith.) Then you may be able to discern where and how they draw the line between credible god beliefs and silly ones.

Oh, and I'd like to say welcome to V23. I've enjoyed your posts. You make a lot of sense to me. I hope you'll stick around. It's a harsh environment here for believers in any sort, but it can be a worthwhile experience. Lots of very intelligent folks post here.

lupus_in_fabula

19th December 2007, 08:59 AM

What evidence is that based on?

I don't think it's about evidence, more like a shift in perspective; before, you saw reality this way, now reality is seen in another way. Hence, there’s nothing supernatural about it, it’s like recognizing that the map is not the territory in a more intimate way than pure intellectual reasoning. How this has snowballed into religious belief systems, structures, rituals, avatars and idols or claims about the physical world is beyond me. The way I see it, it has nothing to do with that, except in the way that you get rid of all such rubbish.

Of course, people in those days didn’t have the analytical tools or vocabulary we have now. In a culture where very little is still written down, things are memorized in rime and fables, so extensive use of metaphors and such is understandable. Perhaps the writing down of these myths and metaphors is one reason why things went awry: people started to treat them as literal truths since they didn’t change according to the context they were presented in anymore. I don’t know.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:02 AM

However, the quality control on the miracle pass rate is governed by God-of-the-Gaps.

Thus we had, for example, a miracle being counted towards JPII's canonisation until it was found out that for JPII to have organised the event he would have needed to travel back in time to when he wasn't dead yet.

Woo.

Well done. One down, twenty thousand plus to go. Drop me a line when you get to 19,000 and I'll send you a magnum of champagne ;)

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:03 AM

Thought:

Why did you choose that shirt to wear this morning?

It was available.

It fits (works for) you.

DR

You cannot compare belief in an omnipotent being to a matter of taste. Religious dogma involves baseless assertions about the existence and non-existence of many things, including the soul, God, miracles, and an afterlife. I believe in graviation because there is evidence. Why do you believe in your religion?

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:05 AM

Actually, that wouldn't answer the OP at all. She wants "scientific evidence" on why what I believe is true and someone elses beliefs are false.

Yes. Do you have any, or do you admit that you believe in your religion merely because A) you want it to be true B) you have never examined it critically C) some other reason, up to an including evidence? Do you have any evidence for any of your religious beliefs? On what grounds do you accept your religion while rejacting all others?

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 09:08 AM

You cannot compare belief in an omnipotent being to a matter of taste. Religious dogma involves baseless assertions about the existence and non-existence of many things, including the soul, God, miracles, and an afterlife. I believe in graviation because there is evidence. Why do you believe in your religion?

You might as well say "You are all stupid for believing in something that I don't. Now tell me why you believe that other stupid guy is wrong."

and then when no one answers ask "Why is no one answering my question?"

Mashuna

19th December 2007, 09:08 AM

I have no interest in homeopathy. Do they really claim it's obvious to those in the know? What aspect do they claim is obvious? That it works? Or how it works?

That it might not be measurable in ways we currently understand is an entirely reasonable position to hold. In the late 19th Century scientists scoffed at the idea of the existence of electromagnetic waves. Now our societies are more or less based around them.

But we're getting OT.

They claim it's obvious that it works, because they have experienced it.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:10 AM

You might as well say "You are all stupid for believing in something that I don't. Now tell me why you believe that other stupid guy is wrong."

and then when no one answers ask "Why is no one answering my question?"

I'm willing to be convinced that your religious beliefs are true, all you have to do is try to explain why you believe them. I would happily change my tune and become a Christian if presented with compelling evidence that God exists, the Christian dogma is accurate, and that God is good.

Do you have any evidence? Why are you a Christian, and not a Muslim, Jew, or Wiccan? What convinced you to accept your religion and reject all others?

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:16 AM

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 09:16 AM

I'm willing to be convinced that your religious beliefs are true, all you have to do is try to explain why you believe them. I would happily change my tune and become a Christian if presented with compelling evidence that God exists, the Christian dogma is accurate, and that God is good.

Do you have any evidence? Why are you a Christian, and not a Muslim, Jew, or Wiccan? What convinced you to accept your religion and reject all others?

This isn't meant to be a smart aleck response back but:

If you care God is there then go look for him. If you don't care he's there then what's it matter ultimately what evidence any of us has? As for Christianity - I'm not sure what Christian dogma has to do with anything. I think I'd first start with Jesus and go on from there. But that's just my opinion and I have no scientific evidence it's more true than some other approach to Christianity.:)

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:17 AM

Well done. One down, twenty thousand plus to go. Drop me a line when you get to 19,000 and I'll send you a magnum of champagne ;)

I take it that the point that I made regarding the quality control techniques involved went straight over your head.

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:19 AM

So I could usefully investigate the thought you had ten seconds before reading this sentence?

Does that thought still exist?

No?

Then my point: "The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist." remains valid.

And your English comprehension is ropey.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:24 AM

This isn't meant to be a smart aleck response back but:

If you care God is there then go look for him.

What makes you think I haven't?

If you don't care he's there then what's it matter ultimately what evidence any of us has?

What makes you think I don't care, and for that matter, why don't you? If the salvation of my soul is at stake, you'd think, as a christian, you could at least be bothered to evangelized when begged to do so.

As for Christianity - I'm not sure what Christian dogma has to do with anything.

Because Christian dogma makes specific claims. Here's the Nicene Creed for your benefit.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Summary: There is only one God, who created Heaven and Earth. Jesus Christ is also divine, and the son of God, his mother was a Virgin, salvation can only be had through him, he was crucifed, died, and was reborn before flying into the sky, baptisms can abolish sin, the dead will be reborn, and the Kingdom of Heaven is imminent.

Does any of that seem familiar?

I think I'd first start with Jesus and go on from there.

Interesting choice, given that's not where the Bible starts.

But that's just my opinion and I have no scientific evidence it's more true than some other approach to Christianity.:)

Ok, but why do you believe it? Please answer that question. I'm begging you.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:25 AM

Not from an omnipotent, omniscient being.
Thanks for bigging me up ;)

Because people with ciritical thinking skills have no reason to believe in them, and without verifiable evidence, people can believe all sorts of things.
Really? So at least 30,000 people, including many skeptics, witness something unexplainable that had been predicted to happen beforehand by a vision of Mary, passed on by 3 peasant children. And that isn't verifiable evidence?
How is it not?
If thousands of people seeing the Sun jump about in the sky, approaching the Earth in a zigzag fashion, and dry their soaking clothes and the ground within an inexplicably short time... and for those people all to have gathered in a field to witness it at a particular predicted day and time ... isn't enough evidence for you, what conceivably would be?
Answer: nothing.

Miracles that have left no evidence.
Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

How is it unrealistic to expect an omnipotent, omniscient, good being to provide constitent revelations? The god of the Pauline letters bears no resemblence to the god of Exodus, who bears to resemblence to the god of The Book of Job, let alone the gods of other religons. If mystical experiences constitute evidence of supernatural beings, why can they be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals, and why are they so variable?
The Pauline letters, Exodus and Job are not reports of internal spiritual states.
It is in these internal states where the commonality you're looking for is to be found.
Normal experiences can be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals too. Does this mean that these normal experiences are invalid, and refer to no reality?

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:32 AM

Thanks for bigging me up ;)

I obviously was not talking about you.

Really? So at least 30,000 people, including many skeptics, witness something unexplainable that had been predicted to happen beforehand by a vision of Mary, passed on by 3 peasant children. And that isn't verifiable evidence?
How is it not?
If thousands of people seeing the Sun jump about in the sky, approaching the Earth in a zigzag fashion, and dry their soaking clothes and the ground within an inexplicably short time... and for those people all to have gathered in a field to witness it at a particular predicted day and time ... isn't enough evidence for you, what conceivably would be?
Answer: nothing.

I assume you're refering to Our Lady of Fatima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima). A bunch of people claim to have seen the sun moving around after being convinced that they should stare at it for a prolonged period, which is rather dangerous. If the sun really did approach the Earth suddenly, and dance about, it somehow failed to boil the seas, burn the sky, rip the Moon from its orbit, and destroy life on the Earth. In fact, no one anywhere else then or since has ever seen any evidence that such an event has ever happened, or even could happen.

Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Oh, so mummification is evidence of Chrisitanity? Does that including Nefertiti and all those mummified Peruvian children in the Andes?

The Pauline letters, Exodus and Job are not reports of internal spiritual states.

False, false, and false. Paul specifically described a mystical vision. Exodus involves Moses having several mystical visions, yet Abraham has a vision wherein he negotiates with an allegedly perfect God, and in Job, Job speaks with God for a rather prolonged discussion wherein God makes fun of Job for not being omnipotent. The Mystical visions in each of those books are remarkably dissimilar.

It is in these internal states where the commonality you're looking for is to be found.
Normal experiences can be induced by oxygen deprivation, mental trauma, and chemicals too. Does this mean that these normal experiences are invalid, and refer to no reality?

Actually, yes. The experiences of a person hallucinating in no way reflect some deeper nature to reality, so why does seeing a god like figure count as peering through the veil of reality whereas dreaming you're a trout does not?

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:34 AM

I take it that the point that I made regarding the quality control techniques involved went straight over your head.

So you're saying the Catholic Church easily accepts miracles? Everything I've heard argues to the contrary.

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:35 AM

Really? How about the incorrupted bodies of saints? St Bernadette for example.
http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/bb_bernadette_body.htm
http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Woo.

Padre Pio used chemicals.

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:37 AM

So you're saying the Catholic Church easily accepts miracles? Everything I've heard argues to the contrary.

Really?

Why, only a few moments ago you were saying that they have accepted at least 20,000.

Is the normal number that most people accept larger than 20,000, then?

How long is your own list for example?

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 09:38 AM

What makes you think I don't care, and for that matter, why don't you? If the salvation of my soul is at stake, you'd think, as a christian, you could at least be bothered to evangelized when begged to do so.

I'll leave it to God. Your soul isn't my burden - mine is.

Because Christian dogma makes specific claims. Here's the Nicene Creed for your benefit.

Does any of that seem familiar?

Yes it does.

Interesting choice, given that's not where the Bible starts.

?? You mean Genesis or what? I'm not going to Genesis to see what Jesus said and I'm not going to Christian Dogma to see what he said. But if that's where you want to go you are free too.

Ok, but why do you believe it? Please answer that question. I'm begging you.

I gave plenty of reasons I believe in a different post knowing full well the response I would get. The response: Sorry - those aren't good enough for me. Excuse me? Was I trying to tell you why you should believe? Those aren't reasons you should believe those are reasons I believe. Those reasons are not reasons for anyone but me.

See - on one hand you are asking for "scientific evidence" (which none exists one way or another) and on the other hand saying "why?" and when told why someone believes it discounting it because it doesn't apply to you.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:38 AM

Does that thought still exist?
It may, but I'd only know that by asking you and trusting your reply. Which is the whole point.

No?

Then my point: "The only kind of phenomena that cannot be investigated are ones that don't exist." remains valid.

And your English comprehension is ropey.

Do you comprehend 'pedantry'?

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:39 AM

Really?

Why, only a few moments ago you were saying that they have accepted at least 20,000.

Is the normal number that most people accept larger than 20,000, then?

How long is your own list for example?

silly

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:41 AM

Woo.

Padre Pio used chemicals.

I see you're quite willing to accept dodgy hearsay when it suits your belief system. Not that you would in the other direction.

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:45 AM

It may, but I'd only know that by asking you and trusting your reply. Which is the whole point.

Do you comprehend 'pedantry'?

Well if the question was too hard, why not just ridicule it.

Saves having to think.

ImaginalDisc

19th December 2007, 09:46 AM

I'll leave it to God. Your soul isn't my burden - mine is.

Not according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

14: ...the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 15: But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16: For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

?? You mean Genesis or what? I'm not going to Genesis to see what Jesus said and I'm not going to Christian Dogma to see what he said. But if that's where you want to go you are free too.

Christianity is rooted in Judaism, that's why the OT comes bundled with the NT. It is no more possible to understand Christianity without Judaism than it is possible to understand Buddism without Hinduism.

I gave plenty of reasons I believe in a different post knowing full well the response I would get. The response: Sorry - those aren't good enough for me. Excuse me? Was I trying to tell you why you should believe? Those aren't reasons you should believe those are reasons I believe. Those reasons are not reasons for anyone but me.

I am begging you tell me why you believe in your religion, but reject all others.

See - on one hand you are asking for "scientific evidence" (which none exists one way or another) and on the other hand saying "why?" and when told why someone believes it discounting it because it doesn't apply to you.

Just tell me why you believe in your religion, please.

Henners

19th December 2007, 09:47 AM

I see you're quite willing to accept dodgy hearsay when it suits your belief system. Not that you would in the other direction.

Reality is not a belief system.

That's where you are making your mistake.

Miracles don't happen in reality - except in the minds of people like woo.

Darth Rotor

19th December 2007, 09:52 AM

You cannot compare belief in an omnipotent being to a matter of taste.
Yes I can. I just did. An anaology does not have to be complete in all details to work, and the anaolgy in progress has to do with fit and choice. That you choose to be obtuse about that is no surprise.
Religious dogma involves baseless assertions about the existence and non-existence of many things, including the soul, God, miracles, and an afterlife. I believe in graviation because there is evidence. Why do you believe in your religion?
Believing in a religion is an incorrect construction. Care to use English properly?

Also, why do you care? You have made your choice, may it serve you well.

I have noted numerous times on this sub forum that I do not prosletyze on the internet, as I find it a fool's errand. My journey was the result of profound human to human interactions, and if I am able to interest someone in a similar path, it will happen over a course of time, in person.

Or, it won't.

DR

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:55 AM

[QUOTE]I assume you're refering to Our Lady of Fatima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fatima). A bunch of people claim to have seen the sun moving around after being convinced that they should stare at it for a prolonged period, which is rather dangerous. If the sun really did approach the Earth suddenly, and dance about, it somehow failed to boil the seas, burn the sky, rip the Moon from its orbit, and destroy life on the Earth. In fact, no one anywhere else then or since has ever seen any evidence that such an event has ever happened, or even could happen.

The event was witnessed by some people up to a radius of 30 miles away from the field in question. Some that hadn't heard of the prediction.
What really happened to the Sun that day, is anyone's guess... but that's why it's a miracle.

Oh, so mummification is evidence of Chrisitanity? Does that including Nefertiti and all those mummified Peruvian children in the Andes?

Straw man alert. Bernadette, for example, was not given prior mummification treatment, as were your examples. How can a body not decompose for 30 years?
Why does this only happen (without mummification treatment) to people recognised as holy in their societies?
If it's just a physical quirk, why doesn't it happen to animals?

False, false, and false. Paul specifically described a mystical vision. Exodus involves Moses having several mystical visions, yet Abraham has a vision wherein he negotiates with an allegedly perfect God, and in Job, Job speaks with God for a rather prolonged discussion wherein God makes fun of Job for not being omnipotent. The Mystical visions in each of those books are remarkably dissimilar. I could meet three different people tomorrow at separate times, and the conversation and mutual attitude, for various reasons would probably be dissimilar.
These reports are not generally recognised as enlightenment experiences, such as that of the Buddha. There is a whole pathway of what are commonly described as visions, between normal experience and final enlightenment. These kinds of experiences can vary according to the particular make-up of the individual.

Actually, yes. The experiences of a person hallucinating in no way reflect some deeper nature to reality, so why does seeing a god like figure count as peering through the veil of reality whereas dreaming you're a trout does not?
By their fruits judge them. Genuine spiritual experiences universally tend to make the individual less selfish, more loving.. for example. Whereas dreaming you're a trout may only lead to a couple of days of vague resentment towards anglers.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 09:57 AM

Reality is not a belief system.

That's where you are making your mistake.

Miracles don't happen in reality - except in the minds of people like woo.

Your whole answer is a belief system.
Is your answer real then? Or just imaginary?

Darth Rotor

19th December 2007, 09:58 AM

A Christian Skeptic, Darth Rotor, why are we going around and around about whether or not it is nice to ask you why you believe in your religion, and not others, and whether there is evidence for it? For the sake of argument, let's say that it's a very rude question and we're horrible people for asking.

Now, could you please address it?

I already did. I will repeat it for you.

Why should I care?

The embedded assumption in the OP presumes that I hold the beliefs of other religions false. I admit that I could choose to be doctrinaire, and shout from the rooftops that Mohamed has to be a false prophet, based on the snippet from the NT about False Prophets, (ETA: for those who care, Matthew 7:15) or for any other doctrinal reason, but that's an empty position for me to take with any Muslim. He'll tell me I don't get it. He might even tell me that Mohamed is the latest revelation. Etc.

The solution for me, in dealing with that Muslim, is to focus on what he and I share, in common, and try to resolve practically where we don't agree. It can be done, between people who treat people as human beings, and not as abstractions. In some cases, however, folks who choose to be doctrinaire choose to be disagreeable. See my point further up regarding where body counts tend to rise.

Thanks to the embedded assumption I mention, the line of inquiry is rather pointless, unless the aim is bashing another person's world view.

If that is where you get your kicks, so be it.

DR

A Christian Sceptic

19th December 2007, 10:02 AM

Not according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.

That's fine. When I meet Paul we can have a nice little talk about which of us were more correct and what scientific evidence we had for it.

Christianity is rooted in Judaism, that's why the OT comes bundled with the NT. It is no more possible to understand Christianity without Judaism than it is possible to understand Buddism without Hinduism.

Like I already said - if that's where you want to go to find out what Jesus said then go ahead.

Henners

19th December 2007, 10:03 AM

Your whole answer is a belief system.
Is your answer real then? Or just imaginary?

An evidence-based system is not a belief system.

Belief systems are useful in spheres where outcomes don't matter, like religions, and woo.

Evidence-based systems are useful when outcomes are important, like Education, Medicine, and Aeronautics.

Let me know if any of this starts to become tricky.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 10:13 AM

An evidence-based system is not a belief system.

Belief systems are useful in spheres where outcomes don't matter, like religions, and woo.

Evidence-based systems are useful when outcomes are important, like Education, Medicine, and Aeronautics.

Let me know if any of this starts to become tricky.

An evidence-based system is just another type of belief system. It will be based, presumably, on the belief that it is important to base conclusions on some kind of evidence.
It will also, most likely, stipulate the types of evidence it believes to be admissible, inadmissible, borderline etc..
Some evidence-based systems will differ from others, based primarily on the particular belief systems underpinning them.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 10:16 AM

Thanks to the embedded assumption I mention, the line of inquiry is rather pointless, unless the aim is bashing another person's world view.

If that is where you get your kicks, so be it.

DR

Exactly, DR !
Well put.

Henners

19th December 2007, 10:24 AM

An evidence-based system is just another type of belief system. It will be based, presumably, on the belief that it is important to base conclusions on some kind of evidence.

Nonsense.

An evidence-based system is based on reality.

Reality is the stuff that is there whether you believe in it or not.

Therefore evidence-based is quite different from belief-based.

See my examples, already provided above, for examples. If you pay some attention to what I write it might help you avoid howlers like claiming chalk is cheese.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 10:32 AM

Nonsense.

An evidence-based system is based on reality.

Reality is the stuff that is there whether you believe in it or not.

Therefore evidence-based is quite different from belief-based.

See my examples, already provided above, for examples. If you pay some attention to what I write it might help you avoid howlers like claiming chalk is cheese.

Yes, reality is there whether you believe it or not. But your particular view of reality is going to be shaped by the knowledge-gathering system you choose to employ on it, which, in turn is based largely on what you believe.
You don't believe in God (I assume), so you don't go looking for God, or only do so in a half-hearted way. Thus beliefs have already decided the outcome.
This happens all the time, in all kinds of areas.

Henners

19th December 2007, 10:42 AM

Yes, reality is there whether you believe it or not. But your particular view of reality is going to be shaped by the knowledge-gathering system you choose to employ on it, which, in turn is based largely on what you believe.
You don't believe in God (I assume), so you don't go looking for God, or only do so in a half-hearted way. Thus beliefs have already decided the outcome.
This happens all the time, in all kinds of areas.

Do you ever get upset that people have to repeat things over and over to you, PJ?

Do you even notice?

I'll tell you what. I've already explained to you why evidence and faith-based systems are different, and I've given you examples of cases where one or the other is appropriate. Why don't you display some initiative by going back and reading them?

Summary:

Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 10:56 AM

Do you ever get upset that people have to repeat things over and over to you, PJ?

Do you even notice?

I'll tell you what. I've already explained to you why evidence and faith-based systems are different, and I've given you examples of cases where one or the other is appropriate. Why don't you display some initiative by going back and reading them?

Summary:

Faith-based systems kill people when used in the real world. They do this because they do not generate reliable outcomes.

Evidence-based systems protect people when used in the real world. They do this because they are based in reality and not in woo.

Ok, your Education, Medicine and Aeronautics.
All based on beliefs.
Education on the belief in the value of knowledge.
Medicine on the belief that it is good to alleviate suffering.
Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.

Epistemology is not just about generating reliable outcomes. It is also about discovering new knowledge or principles.. and to do this usually a high degree of faith is necessary.

Henners

19th December 2007, 11:08 AM

Ok, your Education, Medicine and Aeronautics.
All based on beliefs.
Education on the belief in the value of knowledge.

Ah. A value, not a belief.

Medicine on the belief that it is good to alleviate suffering.

You really should find out the difference between "beliefs" and "values". The medicine that I know about is not primarily about the alleviation of suffering. You are a strange person.

Aeronautics couldn't have got off the ground (geddit?) if the Wright Bros hadn't had faith that powered flight was possible.. in the face of widespread ridicule too. The first aeroplane was a faith-based product.
I'll have to tell those people at Aribus and Boeing that PJ says they are doing it all wrong.
Epistemology is not just about generating reliable outcomes. It is also about discovering new knowledge or principles.. and to do this usually a high degree of faith is necessary.
Look up epistemology and find out what it is, please. Not only is it NOT "just about generating reliable outcomes" it is not EVEN "about generating reliable outcomes".

Faith-based systems, I repeat (again, groan) are only viable in cases where there is no need to generate a reliable outcome.

All of the people who have relied on faith-based medicine and faith-based aeronautics are extinct, or going extinct.

JoeEllison

19th December 2007, 11:14 AM

plumjam

19th December 2007, 11:20 AM

[QUOTE]Ah. A value, not a belief.

You really should find out the difference between "beliefs" and "values".
Beliefs are more fundamental than values. First you have to believe that what you are valuing, for example, exists, in order for that value to be meaningful and worthwhile.

The medicine that I know about is not primarily about the alleviation of suffering. That's a new one. Good job you aren't my doctor.

You are a strange person. Like to be more specific?

I'll have to tell those people at Aribus and Boeing that PJ says they are doing it all wrong. Look up epistemology and find out what it is, please. Not only is it NOT "just about generating reliable outcomes" it is not EVEN "about generating reliable outcomes".
Yes, I mentioned epistemology because you were confounding it with predictive power.

Faith-based systems, I repeat (again, groan) are only viable in cases where there is no need to generate a reliable outcome.
You're missing the point that all systems of conscious thought and action are based ultimately on faith.

All of the people who have relied on faith-based medicine and faith-based aeronautics are extinct, or going extinct.
Modern western medicine is faith based. Faith in a particular world view, in a particular take on methodology, faith in a particular version of mechanistic causality... I could go on..
Eventually you'll see it.

epeos76

19th December 2007, 11:22 AM

So, some relatively sane adherents are offended by the OP because they apparantly hold only the general philosophy and not the 'facts' of their religion to be important anyway.

To the extent this relates to my post, I'm not at all "offended" by the OP. I just don't think the question is the inescapable logical fork it has been held out to be. Also, its more than the 'general philosophy' its a whole list of things you actually do. They have an effect on humans precisely because we are physical, social beings. Singing in the shower is different than singing to an audience. It's not all data processing down here.

[qoute-Lithreal;3258161] I'm not worried about people who use religion to teach love and charity, I'm worried about people who want it to be a bat for smacking things that don't agree with whatever they have decided their religion means. [/quote]

It's more than teaching ideas. Some things/feelings/communications you need to choreograph with other people. It's a way of organizing some of that.

I despise the bat wielding people too. You don't need to use religion for that though. I have no trouble dividing "good" religion from "bad religion based on whether or not it accepts what the last few centuries have taught us about the limits of its jurisdiction.

I am also worried, though about smart, educated people who dismiss religion as child abuse. The liberal protestant tradition was prominient in the abolition movement, sufferage, and the movement for civil rights. A fair reading of American history has to acknowledge the value contributed by religious ideas, along with the troubles they caused.

I don't think you've given fair shift to the more mundane value that churches can add to lots of lives either. Can you think of many other venues where the average denizen of an american city can get together to sing? Put on plays? The art may be lame, but it's a chance to do-it-yourself, not just consume it. Try to do charity work? Talk and think about taking care of each other?

(shortened for sake of thread space, but the reply is to the entire post)

I don't care as much about the circular reasoning as I do about the fact you didn't talk about god beliefs. Re your statements here about your morality philosophy, you seem to be saying, "these are my values and why".

Do you believe there is a god? Do you dismiss other people's god beliefs such as a belief that Pe'le controls volcanic eruptions on the HI Islands?

In reverse order, Pe'le vs Calvin: I know you think it's that simply. I don't. As I attempted to explain above I think that if there is any religious value in the statement Pe'le controls the volcanos, it has nothing to do with the physical processes geology is exploring. I can dismiss anyone who claims it does because I have a much better method for thinking about those claims.

If there is any religious value it will have something to do with being an actual thinking, eating, pooping, dying human being living on an island with active volcanos. I can't evaluate it without - at a minimum - talking with people who are using the belief to do that. Better still watch and see how it causes them to behave. Clearly, none of this is beyond challenge. For concerns about the fate of virgins when Waianae starts rumbling see above re: evidence of harm.

I do believe in God. It's not an unquestioned belief, it's just one that, when I'm honest with myself, I have not be able to shake. I think you're dissatisfaction with my explaination is based on your insistence that I treat belief in god like a proposition in physics.

I don't think religion or religious belief is just a set of ideas. I think its an interelated set of practices, relationships, and ideas.

I realize this is attributing someone else's words to you, but the Godless Geeks site cited above noted that naturalism was primarily justified by how well its premises work in many cases.

I think it's pretty standard sophmore philosophy to point out some of the limits on our ability to "know" the truth. These limits aren't crippling. People have spent a lot of time identifying how we can compare competing claims. But the results are still not universal.

I think it is fair to argue that different premises may have different uses, provided (1) it is possible also to justify that claim for particular premises, and (2) the believer recognizes the limits of those claims. I therefore don't think it's fair to reply that an argument from function implies that the person making the argument is unconcerned about the truth.

plumjam

19th December 2007, 11:22 AM

epeos76

19th December 2007, 11:47 AM

It is a sign of a failed argument when you are forced to redefine a term so broadly that it loses any real meaning. In this thread, the word "belief" has been stretched so thin that it is nearly transparent. When you define it so that religion and aeronautics are treated as roughly equivalent, you have exited the realm of discussion, and entered Fantasy Land. It is sure evidence that you have little foundation for your position, and you should probably stop.

I don't know if you specifically intended this to encompass my posts, but I'm going to respond anyway. It would be ridiculous to suggest that rocket science and pentecostalism rest on equivalent foundations. It is not absurd or unreasonable to disagree with whatever definition you attribute to "belief" or "faith". I'm not required to put the word "blind" in front.

It is also not absurd or unreasonable to be concerned about the limits of what I'm going to keep calling naturalism until somebody proposes something better. For instance, Cass Sunstein (who I otherwise admire) has argued that we can rationally calculate the value of the continued existence of the species and weigh it against the cost of minimizing particular risks. I have zero faith that the Prof. has even identified all the factors required to make that calculation.

We don't know that much about what we are yet. It would be nice to be honest about that. Perhaps you could also respond to the statement that the utility of naturalism has limits well short of the field of human experience.